Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-09-18 Info Packet
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY September 18, 2003 www.icgov.org I SEPTEMBER 22 WORK SESSION ITEMS I IP1 Memorandum from Assistant City Attorney Matthews: Municipal Power Feasibility Study (Power Point presentation at 9/22 Work Session): Iowa City Airport Business Plan I MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS I IP2 Letter from Garry Klein to City Manager: Expanding Recycling to City Parks IP3 Memorandum from City Clerk: Agenda Items for October 15 Joint Meeting IP4 Memorandum from Planning and Community Development Director: Historic Preservation Discussion IP5 Memorandum from Public Works Director to City Manager: Open House for South Wastewater Treatment Facility IP6 Iowa City Police Department Monthly Liquor License (OFF PREMISE SALES) Report - August 2003 IP7 Letter to "Friends and Neighbors" from Carolyn Cavitt and Jim Clayton (Stepping Up), Marcia Klingaman (City Neighborhood Services Coordinator, and Charles Drum (U of I Director of Campus Communication): Formation of Neighborhood Task on High Risk Drinking IP8 Article (Little Village): Long Live Irving Weber [Franklin] IP9 September 24 United Natural Foods, Inc. - Blooming Prairie Groundbreaking IP10 Minutes: July 8 Deer Task Force IPll Minutes: July 17 PATV Board of Directors IP12 FY2003 Budget to Actual for the Twelve Months Ending June 30, 2003 E-mail from Economic Development Planner: Hannah's Blessing Open House I PRELIMINARY/DRAFT MINUTES I IP13 Historic Preservation Commission: September 11 IP14 Iowa City Telecommunications Commission: August 25 IP15 Parks and Recreation Commission: September 10 September 18, 2003 Information Packet tcontinued/ 2 ITEMS PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED IP16 Preliminary Municipalization Feasibility Study for the City of Iowa City, Iowa - September 15, 2003 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY September 18, 2003 www.icgov,org SEPTEMBER 22 WORK SESSION ITEM,~ IP1 from Assistant City Attorney Municipal Power Feasibility MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS IP2 Letter from Garry to City Manager: Expandir I to City Parks IP3 Memorandum from Cit, :lerk: Agenda Items fo Joint Meeting IP4 Memorandum from and Community pment Director: Historic Preservation Discussion IP5 Memorandum from Public Director City Manager: Open House for ~ility IP6 Iowa City Police Department uor License (OFF PREMISE SALES) Report - August 2003 IP7 Letter to "Friends and Neighbors" fror Cavitt and Jim Clayton (Stepping Up), Marcia Klingaman (City Neigh od Services Coordinator, and Charles Drum (U of I Director of Cam Formation of Neighborhood Task on High Risk Drinking IP8 Article (Little Village): IP9 September 24 United Foods Inc. - Blooming Prairie Groundbreaking IP10 Minutes: July 8 Deer Tasl IPll Minutes: July 17 PATV IP12 FY2003 Budget to for the Twelve Months g June 30, 2003 MINUTES IP13 Historic Preset Commission: September 11 IP14 Iowa City Tel Commission: August 25 IP15 Parks and =reation Commission: September 10 ITEMS DISTRIBUTED IP16 Municipalization Feasibility Study for the City of Iowa City, Iowa - 15, 2003 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Andy Matthews, Assistant City Attorney~,~/~)' DATE: September 16, 2003 RE: Municipal Power Feasibility Study Latham & Associates, Inc. has completed the preliminary municipalization feasibility study for each of the participating municipalities. Participating municipalities met with Latham and Associates yesterday to review and discuss the studies. To briefly summarize, the study contained an analysis of the costs of acquisition of the system, operation and maintenance costs, and projected savings, along with other data and analysis. The methodology employed utilized a revenue comparison based on replacement cost minus depreciation, original cost minus depreciation, and a replacement cost value, reduced to net present value. Using replacement cost minus depreciation, the acquisition costs amount to $11,887,118. Using original cost minus depreciation, the acquisition costs amount to $9,463,447. Using replacement cost alone, the acquisition costs amount to $43,215,359. This information is contained in Schedule 11 of the study. Tax exempt revenue bonds may not be used to finance a buyout. With respect to potential savings, the study analyzed the total costs of electric service over 25 years, based on present net value. Annual savings are then projected, based on replacement cost depreciated and original cost depreciated. Utilizing the replacement cost depreciated method, following start-up costs in the first two years, annual savings are in the 4-5% range generally until year 13 and thereafter, when savings increase to the 6-10% range (Schedule 1). Using the original cost depreciated method, beginning with year two, annual savings are in the 4-6% range, until year 15 and thereafter, when the projected savings are in the 7-9% range (Schedule 2). Projected expenses for operations and maintenance are found in Schedule 5, and include both distribution, operations and maintenance, and customer account and general and administrative expense. There was some discussion as to options municipalities may have with respect to operating a municipal utility. It would be possible to outsource some of the operations and activities rather than doing it all "in-house." Additionally, municipalities may be able to utilize duel-use of equipment and personnel it already has for present operations and activities, such as bucket trucks, utility billing systems, and the like. Iowa Code {}476.23(1) provides that a municipal corporation, after being authorized by a vote of the people, may file a petition with the Iowa Utilities Board requesting a certificate of authority to furnish electric service to the existing point of delivery of any customer September 16, 2003 Page 2 already receiving electric service from another utility. If an objection is filed, after notice and hearing, the board will determine whether such service is in the public interest, and whether to grant a certificate of authority. Whether or not an objection is filed, any certificate issued shall require that the petitioner pay to the electric utility currently serving the customer the reasonable price for such facilities, and includes consideration of the cost of facilities being acquired, any necessary generating capacity and transmission capacity dedicated to the customer ("stranded costs"), loss of revenue, and the cost of facilities necessary to reintegrate the system of the utility after detaching the portion sold. An election can be held with a regular municipal election or another other election, but not in conjunction with another local primary or runoff. It can be held with a general election. If a council decides not to set the issue of municipalization before the voters, an election can go forward on the basis of a petition signed by at least ten percent of the number of voters voting in the last city election. At the meeting there was some discussion as to "where we go from here." It was decided that further meetings or activities would be put on hold until each municipality has had an opportunity to study the report. Latham & Associates has offered to meet with interested city councils to discuss the study and to answer questions. If you have any questions, feel free to call me. cc: Steve Atkins, City Manager Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager Marian Karr, City Clerk Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Rick Fosse, Public Works Director Marian Karr IP2 From: Garry & Betsy Klein [the3rdiowa@mchsi.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:24 AM To: steve_atkins@iowa-city.org Cc: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: Expanding Recycling to City Parks Steve, The other night Dee Vanderheef mentioned during the candidates forum her support for improving the city recycling program. Since the format wasn't conducive for what she meant by "improve" I have a c©uple ef concrete ideas of improvement that might be piloted. Hickory Rill Park has a trash can by the 1st Ave. entrance, but no ability for recreaters to recycle their water and pep bottles. As studies shew, recycling, for many, is one of convenience--they'll do it if it is easy. I suggest piloting a program at a park like Hickory Hill because it is easy te gauge the use. If Hickory Hill proves to be worthwhile, other parks, most particularly city park, could be added. I imagine the cost te pilot would be low since the park is on a normal recycling truck route. Additionally, it would be great if bottles and other types of plastics could be added to the curbside program. I know I find myself hard pressed at the grocery trying to limit my purchases to only ~1 and ~2 plastics when many food containers are ~4,5,6 or 7 plastics. Perhaps the waste management folks have already studied this? I certainly understand the safety concerns with glass and perhaps the issues of sorting plastics are too cumbersome, but I wonder if we couldn't help our landfill out by trying to expand the recycling "menu". Garry Klein 628 2nd Ave. City of Iowa City IP3 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 17, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk~'~ RE: Agenda Items for October 15 Joint Meeting North Liberty will be hosting the next joint meeting of the City Councils of Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty; the Iowa City Community School Board, and the Johnson County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, October 15. Please forward any agenda items to me no later than Friday, October 3. The meeting is scheduled to last about two hours. Because of time constraints items will be reviewed by the Mayor prior to submission. A complete agenda will be available in your packet preceding the meeting. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 17, 2003 To: City Manager From: Karin Franklin, Director, Re: Historic Preservation Discussion We would appreciate some additional time to adequately address the Council's concerns regarding historic preservation. I would like to defer this discussion to the October 13 work session. Cc Shelley McCafferty Bob Miklo City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Atkins, City Manager FROM: Rick Fosse, Director of Public Works~¢" DATE: September 17, 2003 RE: Open House for South Wastewater Treatment Facility The Wastewater Division will be having an open house of their south facility on October 10th and 11th, Attached is a flyer outlining the activities and details. Please share this information with the City Council so they can mark their calendars. We are very proud of this facility and are pleased with the recent improvements. It's DONE! It's WORKING! It's AMAZING to See! ~ 2 1/2 years under construction, ~ $26.5 Million Dollars ~- 10,000 Cubic Yards of Concrete ~- 10 million gallons perday. ~' 300 tons of live microorganisms. The new and improved City of Iowa City South VVastewater Treatment Plant Open House, Environmental Fair, and South Sycamore Wetlands Tour! Date: October t0 - 11, 2003 Time: 9:00 am--3:00 pm Tour the "State of the Art" Environmental Facilities: 4366 Napoleon St. S.E. Iowa City, IA 52240 Join us for refreshments in our Training Room. ~' See the process actively cleaning Iowa City's wastewater! ~' Observe living microorganisms on TV! ~'~ Kick the tires of trucks, pumps, and high- tech machinery. ~'~ Talk to a chemist, mechanic, or plant operator. ~ Discuss the details with Engineers and Contractors. .~ Visit the office and computerized control center. ~ Discuss the history and future of water pollution in Iowa with the people who worry about it every day! ~ Pick up pointers and papers on what you can do to help! Tours will be available to the Public from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. Contact us at 319-356-5170 to schedule group tours for your class, club, or civic group... Iowa City Police Department Monthly Liquor License (OFF PREMISE SALES) Report AUGUST 2003 YEAR 2002 ' Total Year to Date Totals ' Arrest/Visit Business Name A B YTD A&J MINI MART-2153 ACT CIR. 0.00 AAJAXXX LIQUOR STORE l /! 0.00 BIG KMART-HOLLYWOOD BLVD 0.00 CUB FOODS 0.00 DAN'S SHORT STOP CORP 0.00 DELIMART - E. BENTON 0.00 DELI-MART - MORMON TREK 17 0.00 0.00 DELIMART-HWY 1 DELIMART-LWR MUSCATINE 4 0.00 DOC'S STANDARD 1 0.00 DRUGTOWN 0.00 EAGLE FOOD CENTER- N.DOD. 0.00 )RES INC 0.00 GASBY'S - S. GILBERT 0.00 GASBY'S EAST- 2303 MUSCAT. 0.00 HANDIMART - DUBUQUE ST. 0.00 HANDIMART - N.DODGE 0.00 - WILLOWCREEK 0.00 HARTIG DRUG - MORMON TREK 0.00 HAWKEYE CON ST - Commerce 0.00 HAWKEYE CON ST-KIRKWOOD 0.00 HY-VEE- N. DODGE ST ! 0.00 HY-VEE- S. 1ST AVE 0.00 HY-VEE~ WATERFRONT 0.00 JOHN'S GROCERY INC 0.00 KUM & GO- GILBERT/BURL. 37 0.00 17 0.00 KUM & GO - MORMON TREK KUM & GO- S. RIVERSIDE 1 0.00 KUM & GO- W. BURLINGTON ST 0.00 L&M MIGHTY SHOP INC 0.00 LIQOUR HOUSE 0.00 LINN STREET CAFI~ 0.00 MINI MART 0.00 0.00 NEW PIONEER COOP NORTH DODGE EXPRESS 4 0.00 THE GO CONV. STORE INC. ! 1 0.00 Column A is the number of times a license holder is visited specifically checking for underage sales. Column B is the number of people charged with possession under the legal age. Note this is not the total number of charges. Iowa City Police Department Monthly Liquor License (OFF PREMISE SALES) Report AUGUST 2003 [YEAR 2002 !Monthly Total Year to Date Totals Arrest/Visit ~B'uSiness Name A ~ B ~ YTD OSCO DRUG 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~ 0.00 Column A is the number of times a license holder is visited specifically checking for underage sales. Column B is the number of people charged with possession under the legal age. Note this is not the total number of charges. GL RK IOW iOWA n .uc ~.uiown,edu/-stepping Executive September 12, 2003 Members Friends and Neighbors, S~sie ~eederma~ Representatives from the City of Iowa City, the University of Iowa and Stepping Up have been holding some prelimina~ meetings to f~us on ways to establish a positive She~y C~po relationship among neighborhood residents. C~rolyn Cavitt ~o~oor~alor We need your help and input, so we are inviting you and all students, neighbors, community leaders, and others interested in be~er neighbo~ood relationships to a kick-off meeting ~SheUe October 1 at 5:30 pm at The Coffage Bake~ and Cafe, 14 S. Linn Street (upper level). The Chr~tensen purpose of this kick-off meeting would be to a fo~ a task force to work toward reducing or eliminating the negative impact of high risk drinking in Iowa C~y neigh~ood& ~ Clayton Refreshments will be se~ed. Sam Cochin This task force would be in place for one year (longer if the members decide to continue the work) and the goal of the task force would be as stated above, "To work toward reducing or C~olyu Colvin eliminating the negative impact of high risk drinking in our neighborhoods." ~other outcome we would hope as a byproduct of this task force is to establish a means of ongoing Nate Gree. communication be~een the neighborhoods and the University. The task force would meet at least once a month through June 2004. We would hope that at least one event for each Sarah Hanseu interested neighborhood could be planned for August of 2004. These events could be door D~e He.rig hangers distributed throughout the neighborhood, a neighborhood picnic with residents, police, public safety and University administration invited, a neighborhood picnic for just the ~ Jeunin~ residents in the area, or whatever the task force determines would be most effective way to bring all residents in the neighborhood together. Ph~p E. Jones Like Stepping Up, the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont is funded by a grant Ma~ Khowassah from the Robefl Wood Johnson Foundation. Their work in neighborhood relations can C~erso. provide a model for this task force. Residents of Burlington have been working for several Ernie Lehman years to create a positive atmosphere in their neighborhood communities and we think the task force can draw from the experiences in Burlington. Stevc Pa[rott Funding to suppo~ the work of this task force will be available from Stepping Up. Oo-o inator Or Neigh as ~reotor of Onmpus B~nn S~cy Communication Stepping Up Stepping Up City of Iowa City University of Iowa Nan Trefz Andrew W~ter~ RSVP: Carol~ Cavitt 335-1349 by September 24, 2003. If you cannot make ~is kick-off meeting but are still interested in pa~icipating in the task farce, please contact Carolyn as well. Cc: Steve Atkins, City Manager, City of Iowa City Iowa City City Council, Phillip E. Jones xoo Stanley Hall, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 55242 (319)353-2529 IP8 THOMAS DEAN Long livel ' A n Iowa City downtpwn gateway boasts a new piece, What might your own high school of public art. At the corner of Iowa Avenue aha Linn Street, a life-sized bronze statue of Irving Weber waves his hat classmates think of you if that were ia greeting to newcomers and old-timers alike. The sculpture--created by Doris Park and Steve Maxon of yourresume? Never got out of town, Kalona's Max-Cast, sponsored by the Iowa City Host Noon Lions C ub dedicated at the Irving Weber Festivalthis past month--is huh.* Must be a loser. But I can't think a piece to celebrate. It is significant not only because public art serves of anyone who would dare call Irving our aesthetic life through the commons but also because k honors an important community member who is. no longer with us, and Weber a ':loser." who will remain with us, I hope, forever./m¥one who has lived in Iowa City for even a skor~t amount of time knows who Irving Weber was--the city's official historian, a man of generous talehts and long The Universityof Iowa, lcd a successful business career in I°wa City' memory who has helped define our community for over a century contributed his time and talents to our town throughout his life now. His historical columns from the Iowa City Pre~-Citizen remain through generous service, served his community in his later years in circulation through the Lions Club reprint books, an dementar¥ with his first-hand historical accounts of our town in the localnews- school is named after him, and an annual community festival hon- paper, and died here. What might your own high school classmates ors the local heritage he preserved, think of you if that were your resume.* Never got out of town, huh.* Our community identity is bound tightly in our own people. Must be a loser. But I can't think ~of anyone who would dare call That may seem obvious, but too often we forget it. In a nationalized Irving Weber a"loser:' And our reverence for him is steeped in his and globalized world, striving for cosmopolitan coastal chic often life-long residence in and service to Iowa City. We need to capture trumps homespun heritage. We lose something profound and fun- that reverence for longevity and make it a principle of place-making damental to our chffracter if we dismiss the local as yokel, and pride ~n our communities. The Irving Weber statue also reminds us of an important prin- I came to Iowa City in the latter part of the 1980s to attend ciple in the :onstruction of place, a principle ail too often scorned graduate school at The University of Iowa. Reading Irving Weber's and forgotten: longevity. There is truth in the cliche that we live in a columns in the local newspaper, I marveled at the octogenarian's "mobile society." Countless histories of our nation sound the note of historical memor~t and his gifts to the community. Although not the everqnovmg frontier and the restless pioneer as essential icons a trained historian by academic standards, he wrote a kind of to our national character, for good and ill. Moving up and out, to invaluable history that no college professor could possibly recreate. the big city, to the coasts, even out of the country, remain signs of Having lived what he talked !boht, having fiunilial proximity to success for our young people. The fact that the average American decades before he was bom {his anCestors fzrst ~ame to Iowa City in changes jobs, careers and residences with increasing frequency [839), and having written out of love rather than tunbition, Weber often is a point of pride more than a sad fact. Certainly our society, brought an authenticity and vitality to his history that more than and our individual communities, are stronger for the freedoms, makes up for what he may have lacked in methodology. economic success and cultural understandings that come from the Although I have learned that I can never truly say "never;' I can mobility of its members. But without a significant countervailing say that I have no intention of leaving Iowa City, and that I have element of longevity, we only preside over the dissipation of place, every intention of growing old here. I don't see that as a failure and that can only lead to a damaged people. Writer Wendell Berry of ambition in the least. I do value, very much, my experiences in reminds us that intergenerational continuity and local history are several different places. Those experiences, of course, have made me the essences of community. He notes that the interruption of suc- a better person and a more aware h~dividual. But I'll never be a 96- cessxve generations in one place, "ramifying through a communip/; year resident of Iowa City, or any community. It's too late for that destroys the continuity and so the integrity of local life. As the chil- (and I don't know if I'll make it to 96, period). But maybe I can get dren depart, generation after generation, the place loses its memory 40, possibly 50 years. That's a long time to learn about Iowa City, to of itself, which is its history and its culture. And the local history, if write about it, to live in it, and to provide service to it. I hope Irving it survives at all, loses its place.... Lacking an authenlic local culture, Weber would be proud of such intention that I can make, and I hope a place is open to exploitation, and ultimately destruction, from the I honor his legacy with even a fraction of the commitment and love center" (WhatAre People For?, pp. 165-166). that he gave to this town and its people..Whenever I pass through Irving Weber, by contemporary measures of success, might be the intersection of Iowa Avenue and Linn Street, I am happy to considered a failure by many. That's tragic. Mr. Weber was born in return the gesture of welcome that Mr. Weber offers us wi~h his Iowa City, raised as a child here, received his college education at tipped bronze top hat. £¥ opinion I Itttle vlllalte I 5 Ff~MI~IE FIEAJllJE United Natural Foods--Blooming Prairie United Natural Foods--Blooming Prairie cordially invite you to attend a cordially invite you to attend a Ground Breal(ing Ceremony Ground Breaking Ceremony Wednesday, September 24, 2003 Wednesday, September 24, 2003 10 a.m. 10 a.m. 9340 Heinz Road 2340 Heinz Road Iowa City, Iowa Iowa City, Iowa Please RSVP by Friday, September 19, to Please RSVP by Friday, September 19, to Iowa City Area Development Group Iowa City Area Development Group at 319.354.3939 319.354.3939 Note: Refreshments will be sewed. On-street parking is available. Note; Refreshments will be sewed. On-street parking is available. MINUTES FI NAL/AP P ROVE DEER TASK FORCE MEETING July 8, 2003 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM - CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Farrant, Pete Sidwell, Harold Goff, Linda Dykstra, Marry Jones MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Sandier, Lezlie Hall, Jan Ashrnan STAFF PRESENT: Lisa Mollenhauer OTHERS: None. INFORMATION ORIENTATION (NOT PART OF REGULAR MEETING) Chair Farrant led an informal orientation for new Task Force Member Jones. CALL TO ORDER Farrant called the meeting to order at 6:15 P.M. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Reaffirm the Deer Management Long-Term Plan. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of June 24 approved as amended. MEMBERSHIP. Martin Jones was welcomed as a new member. MEETING SCHEDULE Mollenhauer will poll Task Force Members for availability. Possible future meeting dates are July 22 and July 29. 2003-2004 RECOMMENDATION Mollenhauer explained that according to the resolution establishing the Deer Task Force (01-80), the following must occur: 1) Before formulating a recommendation, the Deer Task Force must review and reaffirm the Long-Term Deer Management Plan. 2) After affirmation by the Task Force, the City Council must informally affirm the Long-Term Plan. Once that is accomplished the formai recommendation can be formulated and recommended to the City Council. Mollenhauer expressed concern over the deer reflector system item. In 2001, 11 of the 12 accidents in deer reflector zones occurred during darkness (when the reflectors should be effective). She has received articles of the ineffectiveness of signs and reflectors. They are very high maintenance, and there is not adequate City staff to assure maintenance. Goff stated that experts indicate the benefit Deer Task Force Meeting Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 2 of reflectors goes to those who sell them and those who would like to think they are doing something in a non-lethal way. Deer quickly become accustomed to them and they are ineffective. Jones suggested getting information from other entities that have placed them. Residents have complained they are an eyesore at our entrances to town. Mollenhauer will ask Jeff Davidson (PCD Assistant Director) to pose the question to a national traffic engineering newslist. Sidwell volunteered to conduct additional research on effectiveness. The Task Force will review and make a recommendation on reflectors in the 2003-2004 Plan. Sidwell will bring in the sample deer accident videos so work can begin on a defensive driving video for Iowa City. Farrant and Ashman have another draft of the brochure. Dykstra indicated a new product, Liquid Fence, is showing positive results. She will bring a bottle to the next meeting. Members discussed the Long-Term Plan and unanimously agreed it continues to represent the desired general policy of the Task Force. Goff indicated there are differing opinions on some of the interpretations, but it is still a viable plan. OTHER Mollenhauer received word from White Buffalo that if they are approved for sharpshooting, work would take place between December 1 and Christmas. She will again remind the DNR that we need population modeling and Natural Resource Commission meeting dates. NEXT MEETING TBD ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:55 P.M. Minutes submitted by Lisa Mollenhauer IPll PATV Board of Directors Meeting Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:00 pm PA'FY - 206 Lafayette Street 1. Call to order. Present are John C., Bred W-G, Phil P., Steve N., Tom N. and Carrie W. >From the public is Keith Ruff Sing L arrives at 7:15 pm. At 7:10 pm Tom N. calls meeting to order. 2. Consent to agenda: Consented, unanimous with amendment moved by Tom N., 2nd bY Phil P. Move up Public Announcements to convenience the visiting public visitor. Short Public Announcement: Keith Ruff- There is a need for a liffie rearranging upstairs where Keith is on staff. Thanks were expressed very sincerely for the grant money successfully achieved by PATV management for the installation of the automatic door for that office space leased upstairs. Keith said that Tom N. should get together with Chris to get a more settled plan for redesign of the entry way area of the leased office space. Keith suggested that the 22nd of July (Tuesday) at 4 pm will be their next board meeting. Rene P. suggested that she could help Keith Ruffwrite a grent for some capital improvements. 3. Approval of June Minutes: Sing L. moved and Bred W-G 2nd moved approval of the minutes as amended. Secretary Steve N. was given a copy of "Minutes are to Protect Organization" by Robert C. Harris, CAE to study on the need for concise minutes. 4. Old Business: None. 5. Short PublicAnnouncements: Rene P. has a couple of short public announcements. Long time P^TV member Stephen Cree came in and is concemed that Satellite Companies are saying that local TV progremming is on Satellite TVwhen in reality they only provide local major network affiliates, not local access. Gereld Oygard advising on property management issues, wanted to have PATV stripe the Parking Lot so that legal parking is clear and this was referred to Building and Grounds Committee where Bred W-G has indicated he has paint for this project. 6: New Business - Directors Evaluation: Committee of Phil P. and Tom N. to facilitate this process with the forms. 7. Reports: ICTC: None. Committees: Outreach and fundraising committee had a meeting. Carrie W. volunteered to attend the Outreach and Fundmising Committee meeting. Sept 12th event is being planned with telethon fundraiser, South Side Festival and possibly live TV of the shows scheduled that event weekend. Treasurers: Reviewed by the board. Management - Iowa Shams: VVe had an advanced lighting workshop which was attended by about 20 persons. Landscaping day was done. The ACM Conference: VVorking through the report which will be ready for the next Board meeting. Director attended a presentation on "refranchising." Learned about grants for "Media for Social Change" and have materials from the ACM conference. Creative World Daycere was here to visit the TV station. 8. Board announcements: SNeweLLinst(~,aol.com Bradmanunlimited.com John C. has moved to a new residence. The Johnson County Fair starts on Monday, 21 July. Director's Evaluation: VVe are starting the Director's Evaluation process this month. 9. Adjournment: Tom N. moved to adjourn, seconded by Sing L. and unanimous at 9:12 pm Notes by SWN CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY OF I0 WA CITY FY2003 Budget to Actual For the Twelve Months Ending June 30, 2003 An analysis of revenues, expenditures and current cash position for operating accounts. TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERALFUND ................................................................................................................................................. 1 REVENUES ............................................................................................................................................ 1 PROPERTY TAXES ............................................................................................................... 2 FINES, FEES & PERMITS .................................................................................................... 2 CHARGESFORSERVICES ................................................................................................. 3 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE ................................................................................. 4 INTEREST INCOME ............................................................................................................... 4 MISC. OTHER REVENUE ..................................................................................................... 5 ROAD USE TAX ..................................................................................................................... 5 G.O. BOND PROCEEDS ....................................................................................................... 5 MISCELLANEOUS TRANSFERS ....................................................................................... 5 EXPENDITURES ................................................................................................................................... 7 ENTERPRISE FUNDS ......................................................................................................................................... 9 PARKING ................................................................................................................................................ 9 WASTEWATER ................................................................................................................................... f 1 WATER ................................................................................................................................................. 12 REFUSE ................................................................................................................................................ 13 LANDFILL ............................................................................................................................................. 13 AIRPORT .............................................................................................................................................. '14 BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ..................................................................................... 14 OTHER FUNDS ................................................................................................................................................. 15 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (ITS) ........................................................................ '15 EQUIPMENT/FLEET MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................... 16 CENTRAL SERVICES ........................................................................................................................ 16 Analysis by Leigh Lewis, review by Debbie Mansfield and Kevin O'Malley. Iowa City Finance Department, September 2003. CITY OF IOWA CITY QUARTERLY ANALYSIS / BUDGET TO ACTUAL COMPARISON FOR THE TWELVE (12) MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2003 GENERAL FUND Note: Transit Operations moved to General Fund at the start of the current fiscal year, 2003. For fiscal year comparison and analysis, FY2002 General Fund revenues and expenditures have been adjusted to be inclusive of Transit Operations. Beginning Balance 10,471,292 10,471,292 9,924,209 6% Revenue 40,863,141 40,248,136 98% 40,130,960 0% Expenditures (39,904,765) (37,558,484) 94% (39,000,665 -4% Ending Cash Balance 11,429,668 13,160,944 11,054,504 19% The General Fund ending balance at June 30, 2003 is $13,160,944, compared with $11,054,504 in FY02. Revenues are at ninety-eight percent (98%) of budget and comparable to the prior fiscal year's receipts. Expenditures are ninety-four percent (94%) of budget. General Fund Revenue: Property Taxes General Levy 18,457,243 18,415,893 100% 18,577,510 -1% Employee Benefits 5,813,560 5,752,335 99% 4,795,360 20% Emergency Levy 525,202 523,074 100% 527,389 -1% Fines, Fees & Permits 1,697,475 1,931,720 114% 1,821,089 6% Charges for Se~ices 4,630,565 4,706,895 102% 4,380,527 7% Intergovernmental Revenue 2,649,785 2,689,336 101% 2,678,024 0% Interest Income 381,100 380,063 100% 635,082 -40% Sale of Property 468,290 252,330 54% 533,477 -53% Misc. Other Revenue 751,138 736,677 98% 305,549 141% Read Use Tax 3,131,716 2,852,809 91% 3,099,641 -8% GO Bond Proceeds Transfer In 1,470,448 1,117,838 76% n/a Misc. Other Transfers In 886,619 889,166 100% 2,777,312 -68% Grand Total Revenues: 40,863,141 40,248,136 98% 40,130,960 0% Overall, General Fund revenues totaling $40,248,136 are 98% of the FY03 budget of $40,863,141, similar to this time last year. The following table summarizes General Fund revenues into eleven (11) major categories and is followed by a detailed analysis of each. Prope~y Taxes Property tax receipts comprised sixty-two percent (62%) of General Fund revenue in FY03 with $24,691,302 received through June 30, 2003. Current receipts reflect $18,415,893 from general levy, $5,752,335 from the employee benefits levy and $523,074 from the emergency levy. Revenue from the Employee Benefit's Levy covers the employer's share of FICA, IPERS, health and dental insurance costs, and Police and Fire pension contributions. Fines, Fees, Permits: Censtr~¢tien & Housing Related Ma~istrete Ce~rt Fines/~l 250,000 330,769 132% 279,249 18% Parking Fines 475,000 461,155 ~7% 508,776 ~9% Library Fines 136,000 156,028 115% 157,668 -1% Vlisc. Other 154,625 193,489 125% 192,203 1% l'otal Fines, Fees & Permits: 1,697,475 1,93t,720 114% 1,821,089 6% This category includes the following revenue sources: construction-related licensing, permit and inspection fees; fine revenue from magistrate court, parking tickets and the public library. Receipts through June 30, 2003 total $1,931,720 and are 114% of budget, a six percent (6%) increase over FY02 receipts at this time. (1) Construction and Housing Related Licenses and Permits are 116% of budget, a sixteen percent (16%) increase over FY2002, particularly in electrical, mechanical and plumbing permit and inspection fees. (2) Magistrate court fines are at 132% of budget through June 30, 2003. This represents an 18% increase over this time last year and is due in part to a significant increase in PAULA convictions (Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age). -2- Charqes for Services: Administrative Service Fees (Non-General Fund divisions) 1,321,731 1~321,731 100% 1,225,281 8% Housing, Bldg, Const. & Plan Inspections Il} 236,451 309,228 131% 244,869 26% Recreation Feesla} 680,695 526,160 77% 529,871 -1% Transit Fees/3) 606,850 770,824 127% 655,197 18% 28E Agreements: Univ. of Iowa Fire 28E Agreement 1,101,480 1,101,624 100% 1 ~003,607 10% Coralville / Animal Care Services 92,055 80,454 87% 63,502 27% lC Comm. Schools / Mercer Aquatic Ctr (4) 65,000 36,506 56% 87,939 -58% Johnson Co. / iC Public Library 287,783 285,656 99% 270,810 5% Johnson Co. / Sr. Center (s) 100,000 100,000 100% 141,410 -29% Misc. Other Charges for Services 138,520 174,710 126% 158,041 11% Total Charges for Services: 4,630,565 4,706,895 102% 4,380,527 7% Charges for services total $4,706,895 are 102% of budget, up seven percent (7%) from this time last year. This category includes receipts from non-general fund depadments/divisions for administrative services, plan checking fees (Building Inspection), recreation fees and revenue from the following state and local governmental agencies for provision of services: the University of Iowa for fire protection, lC Community School District for use of Mercer Park pool, Coralville for animal control services, and Johnson County for Library and Senior Center use by county residents. (1) Development and construction inspection fees are 131% of the FY03 budget and up twenty-six pement (26%) from FY2002 due to an increase in subdivision and rezoning applications and developer plan reviews (plan checking fee). (2) Recreation fee revenue is seventy-seven percent (77%) of budget at fiscal year end. Fee revenue estimates are based on the average attendance for each program over the past 3 - 5 years. In FY2003 swimming pool and summer camp attendance were down from prior years. Recreation staff continue to monitor attendance in the various programs in order to fit the changing needs and interests of the community. (3) Transit Fees are 127% of the FY03 budget, up eighteen percent (18%) from FY2002, due in part to increased use of University-subsidized bus passes by students and faculty/staff. (4) Revenue from the Iowa City Community School District / Mercer Park Aquatic Center agreement is 56% of budget n FY2003 due to receipt of the final quarter payment after June 30th. (5) While Senior Center funding from Johnson County is 100% of budget in FY03, actual revenue of $100,000 is down from $141,410 in Fy2002, a twenty-nine percent (-29%) decrease per the County's decision to reduce funding support. -3- Interqovernmental Revenue: Gas & Electric Tax 429,232 399,073 93% 401,688 0% State Population Allocation 596,125 571,581 96% 595,138 -4% Bank Franchise Tax¢) 97,000 184,348 190% 117,073 57% Hotel/Motel Tax 614,580 563,484 92% 548,392 3% Library Grants(2) 79,215 92,820 117% 69,438 34% State Transit Assistance 270,128 292,411 198% 301,416 -3% Federal Grants - Transit 402,180 405,540 101% 379,945 7% Univ. Heights Transit 28E Agreement 29,700 27,309 92% 26,294 4% Public Safety Grants (3} 113,428 147,970 130% 159,651 -7% Misc. Other® 18,197 4,806 26% 78,989 -94% Total State/Fed Funding: 2,649,785 2,689,336 101% 2,678,024 0% Local, state and federal funding is 101% of the FY2003 budget at $2,689,336 and comparable to FY02 levels. Funding sources include the state-distributed Gas & Electric Excise Tax, State Population Allocation, Hotel/Motel Tax, and Bank Franchise Tax and miscellaneous other state and federal grants. Items of note are highlighted below. (1) Bank Franchise Tax is remitted on a quarterly basis from the state. FY2003 receipts were 190% of budget, up fifty-seven percent (57%) from FY2002 based on tax returns filed with the state. (2) Library grants are 117% of budget, up thirty-four percent (34%) from last fiscal year, due in part to increased monies from the state-funded Enrich Iowa program. (3) Public Safety Grants were greater than expected, totaling $147,970 or 130% of budget. (4) Miscellaneous Other funding in FY2002 included $43,083 in from the State of iowa in the form of pass- thru funds which were redistributed to the University for expenditures on the Hwy 6 Pedestrian Bridge Project. Interest Income General Fund's interest income received through June 30, 2003 is $380,063 and one hundred percent (100%) of budget. This revenue is down forty percent (-40%) from this time last year. Interest rates fell percent (-50%) over the fiscal year from 1.68 basis points on a July 1, 2002, thirty-year Treasury note to .84 on June 30, 2003. -4- Miscellaneous Other Revenue Miscellaneous Other Revenue includes a loan repayment from the Englert Civic Theater for $100,000; rent revenue for Parks and Recreation facilities ($110,070); reimbursement for services provided internally between city departments/divisions ($150,218); a transfer into the General Fund from the Health Insurance Reserve ($200,000); and sale of condemned, vacated and cemetery properties ($252,330). Road Use Tax Road Use Tax is a state-levied gas tax that is shared with municipalities on a per-capita basis. These monies are initially receipted into the City's Road Use Tax Fund with a portion then transferred to the General Fund to cover Traffic Engineering and Streets division expenses. Transfers totaling $2,852,809 are ninety-one percent (91%) of the FY03 budget and down eight percent (-8%) from this time last year. A portion of this is due to the partial funding of Streets and Traffic Engineering personnel costs by the employee benefits levy, a change which took place in FY03. G.O. Bond Proceeds - Transfer Into General Fund Budgeted transfers into the General Fund from G.O. bond proceeds (2001, 2002 and 2003 issues) totaled $1,117,838 and are seventy-six percent (76%) of budget. The 2003 issue has been postponed until the fall of 2003, capital outlay transfers were budgeted at $471,266 in FY03. Misc. Transfers Into General Fund Miscellaneous transfers into the General Fund were 100% of budget. Transfers from Parking Operations ($200,000) and the Broadband Fund ($82,074) provide additional financial support to the General Fund. Transit Operations' move to the General Fund at the beginning of fiscal year 2003, brought with it the existing fund balance of $583,213. State law requires that the Transit Levy be receipted into the General Fund. During prior fiscal years, this levy was then transferred out of General Fund into Transit. This transfer is no longer necessary as Transit became a part of the General Fund at the start of FY03. -5- FY2003 General Fund Receipts Thru June 30, 2003 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% , Ge ne ra I Levy F~ ~ ~ Employee Benefits Emergency Levy Fines, Fees & Permits Charges for Services intergovernmental Revenue Interest Income Sale of Property Misc. Other Revenue Road Use Tax Misc. Transfers In GO Bond Proceeds Transfer In FY2003 General Fund Expenditures Thru March 31, 2003 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Personal Services Commodities Charges for Services Capital Outlay Transfers to Capital Projects (ClP) To EClCOG, JCCOG & Airport Interfund Loan Repayments Misc. Transfers Contingency I . ~ ! GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES General Fund expenditures totaling $37,558,484 are at ninety-four percent (94%) of budget. Expenditures for FY2002 have been adjusted to include Transit Operations due to it's move into the General Fund at the start of fiscal year 2003. ~get A~t!~al B~g~t Personal Services 27,537,090 26,828,515 97% 25,525,048 5% Commodities¢) 1,970,305 1,540,489 78% 1,410,760 9% Charges for Services 7,730,681 6,962,957 90% 6,720,465 4% Capital Outlay(Z) 1,690,917 1,383,758 82% 1,491,124 -7% Transfers to Capital Projects {CIP) (~) 96,499 69,055 72% 165,964 0% To Airport, Transit, ECICOG & JCCOG (4~ 311,121 264,889 85% 609,200 -57% Intedund Loan Repayments (=~ 430,457 422,833 98% 459,240 -8% Misc. Transfers{s) 85,988 85,988 100% 400,714 -79% Transit Levy(7a) n/a 1,815,606 n/a To~ Levy (~a} n/a 402,544 n/a Contingency 51,707 0% 0% Total Expenditures: 39,904,765 37,558,484 94% 39,000,665 -4% (1) Commodities are seventy-eight percent (78%) of budget with the following items of note: · Savings were experienced in the following areas: Ice control chemicals 34,000 Uniforms 21,000 Fuel 42,000 Rec Supplies 13,500 Educational Supplies 15,500 Minor Tools & Equipment 15,000 Traffic Controls & Imprevs. 20,000 Buses 25,000 · Identification tags purchased by the Library were budgeted as a commodity at $41,000 but paid out as capital outlay to allow for capitalization. · Concrete costs were $41,560 over budget due to street repair costs in FY2003. (2) Capital Outlay purchases totaling $1,383,758 are eighty-two percent (82%) of budget at fiscal year end. Open purchase orders represent $146,370 in unspent funds and an additional $89,000 is anticipated for carryover to the FY04 budget for various projects and/or purchases which were delayed in FY03. -7- (3) General Fund transfers to Capital Improvement Projects (ClP) totaled $69,341 and are seventy-two percent (72%) of budget. Funding was provided for Flood Plain Mapping, Civic Center projects, the Peninsula project, Airport North Commercial Park and as a local funding match to grants for Airport Hangar Rehab, Airport Environmental Assessment and Airport Obstruction Removal. (4) Transit received $330,000 in funding from the General Fund in FY02. Excluding this transaction, transfers out of the General Fund decreased five percent (-5%) from $279,200 in FY02 to $264,889 in FY03. · JCCOG funding increased by 24% or $29,951. However, the General Fund will be reimbursed approximately $31,000 related to transportation planning costs. · Transfers to Airport Operations are $110,538 in FY03 and $44,262 less than FY02, due primarily to restructuring of Airport's internal loan repayments. However, airport-related capital improvement projects (see item 3, above) received $43,707 in General Fund transfers during FY03, raising the total General Fund subsidy of Airport-related activities to $154,245 for the current fiscal year. Further discussion of this is provided in the Airport summary of this report. (5) A schedule of Interfund Loan Repayments is provided at the end of this section. (6) Miscellaneous Transfers includes a $309,296 transfer from Transit Operations to the Transit Equipment Replacement Reserve in FY02. FY03 transfers are from Library Operations into a Library Equipment Replacement Reserve Funds and a transfer from Senior Center to Parking for designated parking in Tower Place. (7) (a) Transfers out of the General Fund to Transit Operations and Risk Management (Tort Levy) do not occur in FY2003 as these cost centers were moved into General Fund at the beginning of this fiscal year. (b) Excluding these transfers from FY2002 expenditures provides a more accurate comparison of expenditure levels for the two years, indicating a two percent (2%) increase over expenditures at this time last year. Civic Center North Court 30,400 30,400 100% 30,400 0% CBD Maintenance Skid Loader n/a 3,780 -100% Englert Theater Purchase 160,783 160,783 100% 160,783 0% Tornado/Emergency Sirens 35,157 35,157 100% 34,128 3% Fire Dept. Air System 16,932 16,932 100% 16,896 0% HIS Computer Upgrade 25,524 25,524 100% 25,524 0% Mercer / Scanlon Gym 88,097 88,097 100% 86,499 2% Senior Center HVAC 22,644 22,644 100% 25,056 -10% Senior Center Bldg. Improvs 43,296 43,296 100% 67,330 -36% Senior Center Sprinkler System 7,624 n/a 8,844 -100% Total Transfers Out: 430,457 422,833 98% 459,240 -8% -8- ENTERPRISE FUNDS The enterprise funds include Parking, Wastewater Treatment, Water, Refuse, Landfill, Airport and Broadband Telecommunications. Funding comes, in part, from user fees and charges for the services provided to individual customers. Transit Operations, previously accounted for as an Enterprise Fund, was moved to General Fund at the start of FY2003. The following summaries examine revenue and expenditure levels for operations, including beginning and ending cash balance. Parkinq Fund - Beginning Balance 522,144 522,144 315,319 66% Revenue 4,101,130 4,436,047 108% 4,153,818 7% Expenditures (4,555,213) (4,507,972) 99% (3,946,993 14% Ending Cash Balance 68,061 450,219 522,144 -14% Overall, parking revenue is 108% of budget at $4,436,047 through June 30, 2003. Expenditures are ninety- nine percent (99%) of budget at $4,507,972. The fund balance is $450,219 at fiscal year end, or ten percent (10%) of expenditures. Parking fines and fees generated eighty-four percent (84%) of this fund's revenue in FY2003. The following table takes a detailed look at parking fines and other fee revenue types. Overall, fee revenue is 110% of budget at fiscal year end and up one percent (1%) from this same time last year. Parking Fines 530,000 528,933 100% 521,405 1% On Street Meters (~D 500,000 605,842 121% 546,238 11% Off Street Meters (2) 100,000 112,675 113% 202,469 -44% Permit Lots (3D 116,080 155,461 134% 112,716 38% Meter Hoods & Rentals(s) 73,100 44,914 61% 45,694 -2% CapitolSt. Ramp® 880,000 1,038,728 118% 1,015,786 2% Dubuque St. Ramp(sD 280,000 297,730 106% 374,176 -20% Chauncey-Swan Ramp 45,000 46,305 103% 48,108 -4% Tower Place Ramp (eD 345,000 319,024 92% 228,750 39% Ramp Permits 437,000 488,573 112% 475,465 3% Hotel Parking Contract® 60,000 60,000 100% 86,159 -30% Senior Center Pkg Contract 20,000 20,000 100% 20,000 0% Fee Revenue 3,386,180 3,718,185 110% 3,676,966 1% -9- Numerous changes have occurred in the Parking System in recent months and years, as indicated by the far right column entitled 'Percentage Change: FY2002 to FY2003'. A brief description of the more significant changes is provided below: (1) On-Street Meters are 121% of budget at 605,842, up eleven percent (11%) from this time last year due to a rate change in several blocks of the downtown and adjacent metered areas. (2) Off-Street Meters are down forty-four percent (44%) from last year when the Library Lot was attended and charged for hourly parking. This change was made to allow for Library construction and staging. (3) Meter Hoods & Rentals are Iow for the year due in part to a decrease in construction in the Central Business District area and partial receipt of monies within Permit Lots. Permit lots are at 134% of budget, up thirty-eight percent (38%) from FY2002. (4) Capital Street Ramp receipts totaled $1,038,728. While this is 118% of the FY03 budget, it is also comparable to FY2002 receipts of $1,015,786. (5) Dubuque Street Ramp revenue is down twenty percent (-20%) from this time last year due to operational changes requested by the Library to provide parking for its patrons. (6) Because this is the first complete year of operations, revenue for Tower Place Ramp at June 30, 2003 is thirty-nine percent (39%) higher than it was for FY2002. (?) Revenue from the hotel parking contract is one hundred percent (100%) of budget. Receipts in FY2002 reflect hotel usage over the contracted number of hours during the prior contract year. When hotel patronage exceeds the maximum number of hours contracted for per month, fees are charged at the hourly rate of $.60/hour. -10- Wastewater Treatment Fund - Beginning Balance 4,363,026 4,363,026 7,616,115 -43% Revenue 12,724,000 13,396,864 105% 12,552,357 7% Expenditures (15,807,454) (13,858,400) 88% (15,805,446 -12% Ending Cash Balance 1,279,572 3,901,490 4,363,026 -11% Wastewater revenue is at 105% of budget and expenditures at 88% at June 30, 2003. Fund balance is above the recommended twenty percent (20%) of expenditures and ninety-one percent (91%) of the fiscal year's revenues came from wastewater collection fees. Overall, expenditures are down twelve percent (-12%) from FY02. This is due primarily to the $1.5 million in capital project funding for the North Plant upgrade and South Plant construction during FY2002. Bond and interest payments have also decreased by $960,000. Excluding capital projects and debt service funding from FY2002, operational costs through June 30, 2003 are eighteen percent (18%) higher than FY2002. An increase was anticipated with the South Plant coming 'on line'. Personal Se~ices 1,602,924 1,570,876 98% 1,466,896 7% Commodities 469,276 408,638 87% 298,582 37% Charges for Se~ices 1,966,336 1,910,935 97% 1,510,686 26% Capital Outlay 561,643 160,852 29% 149,928 7% Operational Costs 4,600,179 4,051,301 88% 3,426,092 18% Capital Projects 3,898,853 2,478,115 64% 4,067,425 -39% Debt Se~ice Funding 7,308,422 7,328,984 100% 8,288,196 -12% Misc. Transfers n/a 23,733 -100% Total Expenditures: 15,807,454 13,858,400 88% 15,805,~6 -12% -11 - Water Operatinq Fund- Beginning Balance 4,925,978 4,925,978 11,501,629 -57% Revenue 9,855,000 10,126,152 103% 10,309,895 -2% Expenditures (10,533,163) (8,673,592) 82% (16,885,546 -49% Ending Cash Balance 4,247,815 6,378,538 4,925,978 29% Water revenue is 103% of budget and expenditures are eighty-two percent (82%) at June 30, 2003. Fund balance is above the recommended twenty percent (20%) of expenditures and ninety-six percent (96%) of this fund's revenue comes from user fees. Over recent years, Water Operation's fund balance provided twenty percent (20%) cash funding for water-related capital improvement projects, the most significant being a new water treatment facility located on North Dubuque Street. With completion of this project during FY2003, an examination of operations and fund balance indicated that an adjustment to water rates would be appropriate. Council approved a five percent rate decrease effective July 1, 2003. Personal Services 1,875,000 1,812,864 97% 1,601,505 13% Commodities 839,682 677,521 81% 600,493 13% Charges for Services 1,690,481 1,328,777 79% 1,279,319 4% Capital Outlay 913,706 480,859 53% 309,543 55% Operational Costs 5,318,869 4,300,021 81% 3,790,860 13% Capital Projects 801,969 265,497 33% 9,082,993 -97% Debt Service Funding 3,776,325 3,472,074 92% 3,315,692 5% Misc. Transfers 636,000 636,000 100% 696,000 -9% Total Expenditures: 10,533,163 8,673,592 82% 16,885,545 -49% Operational costs at the end of FY2003 are eighty-one percent (81%) of the budget estimate of $4,300,021, due in part to the delay of several capital outlay purchases. These items will most likely be carried over into FY2004. Operational costs are thirteen percent (13%) higher than they were in FY2002; however, an increase was anticipated while new water treatment facilities were being tested and became operational this fiscal year. Transfers out to water-related capital projects are thirty-three pement (33%) of budget. Annual water main improvements of $300,000 were not necessary in FY03, land purchase for the Taft & Court Ground Storage Reservoir has been moved to FY04 (budgeted at $130,000) and $100,000 will be transferred at a later date in accordance with the timing of specific water main projects. -12- Refuse Collection Fund - Beginning Balance 879,187 879,187 939,296 -6% Revenue 2,144,491 2,162,138 101% 1,952,859 11% Expenditures (2,333,253) (2,158,632) 93% (2,012,967) 7% Ending Cash Balance 690,425 882,693 879,188 0% Revenue is 101% of budget and expenditures are ninety-three percent (93%) of budget at fiscal year end. Fund balance is adequate and collection/user fees comprised over ninety-nine percent (99%) of this fund's revenue in FY2003. Landfill Operations Fund - Beginning Balance 8,013,135 8,013,135 5,267,344 52% Revenue 3,116,000 3,889,102 125% 5,255,556 -26% Expenditures (3,145,487) (2,701,931) 86% (2,509,765 8% Ending Cash Balance 7,983,648 9,200,306 8,013,135 15% Revenues totaling $3,889,102 are 125% of the FY03 budget with above average receipts in landfill tipping and special waste disposal fees. Expenditures totaling $2,701,931, are eighty-six percent (86%) of budget, with $185,000 in contracted improvements not yet complete. Landfill's ending cash balance is in accordance with state reserve requirements and is being monitored by Finance Administration. Regulations are currently under review at the state level in order to ensure the availability of funds for closure costs as landfill cells fill up. User Fees currently comprised ninety-four percent (94%) of this funds total revenue in FY2003. -13- Airport O~erations - Beginning Balance 75 75 14,558 Revenue 340,065 316,226 93% 332,827 -5% Expenditures (346,931) (310,978) 90% (347,310 -10% Ending Cash Balance (6,791) 5,323 75 Airport funding is comprised primarily of property rentals (57%) and a General Fund subsidy (35%). Revenue through June 30, 2003 is ninety-three percent (93%) of the FY03 budget, with rentals higher than the revised budget at 117%. Expenditures are ninety percent (90%) of budget. Loan payments due from the Airport for past capital improvements were restructured by Finance Administration with an effective date of January 1, 2003. This restructuring extends the term of each of the loans, providing lower annual payments and matching those payments to hangar rent revenue. General Fund operating subsidy totaled $110,538 for the fiscal year ending July 30, 2003. An additional $43,707 of funding was transferred out of the General Fund in support of Airport Capital Improvement projects, bringing the total to $154,245 in FY03. Broadband Telecommunications Fund Beginning Balance 309,842 309,842 329,528 -6% Revenue 500,000 729,795 146% 471,553 55% Expenditures (577,587) (500,120) 87% (491,239 2% Ending Cash Balance 232,255 539,517 309,842 74% Broadband Telecommunications received ninety-eight percent (98%) of its revenue from franchise and local programming fees in FY03. Revenues exceeded budget for the year at 146%, due to the late receipt of franchise fees from FY2002. Expenditure levels are eighty-seven percent (87%) of the FY03 budget, due in part to the delay of the new Avatar progam and awaited licensing from the FCC for a Iow power radio station. Commodities are at thirty-five percent (35%), charges for services at seventy-five percent (75%) and capital outlay is at thirty- six percent (36%). Overall, expenditure levels are up two percent (2%) from this time last year. -14- OTHER FUNDS Other funds included in this analysis are the internal service funds including Information Technology Services (ITS), Equipment & Fleet Maintenance and Central Services. Funding of internal service funds comes from chargebacks to departments and divisions for services rendered. Information TechnoloRy Services Fund - Beginning Balance 352,737 352,736 273,683 i 29% Revenue 997,867 1,190,672 119% 993,185 20% Expenditures (977,333) (1,150,872) 118% (914,131', 26% Ending Cash Balance 373,271 392,536 352,737 ! 11% Charges from Information Technology Services are based on hardware, network and internet usage; staff-provided training, software and hardware support time, website and database development services. Revenues of $1,190,672 are 119% of budget. Desktop suppor[ revenue exceeded expectations at 130% of budget. Expenditures are 118% of budget through June 30, 2003. While commodity spending is at forty-four percent (44%) through June 30 or $23,588, Charges for Services are 155% of budget at $339,986. Professional consulting costs for network administration and the development, maintenance and administration of the City's web page were budgeted at $99,000 and totaled $205,955 for the fiscal year. Capital outlay purchases & transfers were 165% of budget due to an intradivision transfer of $100,000 for reallocation of this fund's balance between the desktop support, network and web development. Personal Services 524,148 489,420 93% 437,317 12% Commodities 54,107 23,588 44% 38,808 -30% Services & Charges 219,078 339,986 155% 315,842 8% Capital Outlay 180,000 297,878 165% 122,074 144% Total Expenditures 977,333 1,150,872 118% 914,131 26% -15- Equipment / Fleet Maintenance - Beginning Balance 85,292 85,292 65,443 30% Revenue 1,594,653 1,752,483 110% 1,548,147 13% Expenditures (1,661,249) (1,635,767) 98% (1,528,298 7% Ending Cash Balance 18,696 202,008 85,292 137% This fund accounts for maintenance on all City vehicles and equipment excluding the Transit Division. Revenues are generated from charges to City departments and divisions based on vehicle usage and routine maintenance costs. Revenues total $1,752,483 through June 30, 2003. This includes $1,221,077 in equipment and vehicle rental and $526,100 in maintenance and repair charges to City departments and divisions. Expenditures are $1,635,767 or ninety-eight percent (98%) of budget. Routine vehicle repair and maintenance costs were $45,000 less than budget. This savings was offset by costs related to installation of the new fleet management system in FY03. Central Services- Beginning Balance 376,731 376,731 358,296 5% Revenue 253,105 233,026 92% 237,083 -2% Expenditures (427,650) (402,739) 94% (218,648) 84% Ending Cash Balance 202,186 207,018 376,731 -45% The Central Service division accounts for the centralized purchase of paper and printing supplies, distribution and chargeback of U.S. mail and the purchase/lease of City-owned copy and fax machines. This division is also responsible for the administration of RFP's and service contracts. Departments and divisions are charged for equipment and services, accounting for ninety-seven percent (96%) of funding. Local governments contribute three pement (3%) for use of city administered radio towers. Revenue is at ninety-two percent (92%) of budget through June 30, 2003 with mailing/postage charges to departments and divisions at seventy-one percent (71%) of budget. Original projections were based on an anticipated but unrealized increase in fees during the FY03 budget cycle. Operating costs for the Central Services division are, to a certain degree, on an as-needed basis for machine repair, maintenance and servicing. A one-time $150,000 transfer was also made out of Central Services to provide padial funding of the fiber optic / phone upgrade capital improvement project. -16- Marian Karr From: Stephen Long Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:13 AM To: *City Council Subject: Hannah's Blessing Open House I thought that you might be interested in this open house since the project was funded with Iowa City CDBG funds. From Danielle Thompson -- You are cordially invited to attend an open house for: Hannah's Blessing Child Development Center (a program of Eagles' Flight,Inc.) Wednesday, September 24, 2003 at 6:3opm 1516 Sheridan Avenue Iowa City Draft IP13 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11,2003 - 7:00 P.M. EMMA HARVAT HALL - CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Paul Sueppel, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Amy Smothers STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 812 S. Summit Street. McCafferty said this was an application from Jamie Powers, who plans to convert this building to a bake shop. McCafferty said Powers is not required to provide handicapped accessibility but would like to. McCafferty said that Powers plans to leave the existing concrete and put in a new wood ramp with a simple metal pipe handrail. She said that Powers also plans to put a small concrete patio in the front, which does not require review by the Commission. McCafferty said the plan is to have shrubbery in front of the ramp to help conceal it. McCafferty said there is an existing door on the alley side of the building. She said Powers would like to be able to use that door and plans to put in a stoop with wood steps and hand railing. McCafferty said that Powers would be using economic development money for this; therefore the project would be subject to SHPO review. McCafferty showed an elevation of the side stoop. Sueppel asked if it would be open underneath when it was complete. McCafferty said the rear entry would have vertical latticework underneath, which would be acceptable to the Commission. Maharry said the Commission could probably not require the shrubbery in front but could recommend it. McCafferty agreed. Weitzel pointed out that it is shown on the plans. McCafferty said that SHPO actually will be reviewing this, and it would have more authority to require something like that. Weitzel asked if SHPO would find the metal pipe railing acceptable. McCafferty said she thought it would. She said that although it is not an historic stoop, it would be one of the least intrusive ways of doing this. Weitzel said he thought this would be a good thing and thought the Commission should pass it. McCallum asked about the concrete pad. McCafferty said there will probably be a couple of benches, but not enough to classify this as a restaurant. Gunn asked about the location of the sidewalk, and McCafferty showed the sidewalk on the plans. McOallum said that if there were to be a patio there, there would be a lot of concrete. McCafferty said this complies with the zoning code and does not require a permit. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 812 South Summit Street, with the recommendation that there be latticework under the back stoop at the rear entry. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 401 South Governor Street. McCafferty said she received a site plan for this proposal earlier in the day, and she distributed copies to Commission members. She said this project involves a proposed building Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 11,2003 Page 2 for a vacant lot that the Commission had looked at previously. McCafferty said that Dennis Spencer had purchased the house and the lot next to it. McCafferty said that Spencer proposes a Foursquare-style house here. She said the Commission previously looked at another proposal by Spencer, but the Commission had felt that it was too wide and too big for the neighborhood. Weitzel asked McCafferty if she had discussed the window placement with Spencer, specifically the balance of windows on the previous application. McCafferty said either she or the Commission had discussed it with Spencer. She said the new proposal shows the aligned windows vertically and it is narrower than the previous proposal. Weitzel said he felt that the placement of the windows on the sides is still a little off. McCafferty said she had talked to Spencer about that. She said Spencer was okay with the possibility that it might take Mo meetings before the Commission would vote on his proposal. McCafferty showed the products that Spencer proposes to use: a wide J-channel used in vinyl installation, which would be used around the windows to simulate wide window trim, and a cornerboard system. She said the windows being I~roposed would be all vinyl, which would not comply with the guidelines. She said that the other house on Governor Street that the Commission had either wood or fiber cement board trim. McCafferty said part of the reason for having this type of trim is that if the siding is replaced, it is less likely that these character defining features will be removed. Weitzel asked about the vinyl trim and if it was not what the Commission approved before. McCafferty said they approved fiber cement board on the house down the street. Weitzel said the Commission should be consistent. Maharry said that this property is in a conservation district. Carlson said that synthetic siding is acceptable on new structures in conservation districts. He said the Commission could therefore recommend but not require different siding than that which is being proposed. McCafferty said there really are not specific recommendations regarding trim on new construction in the old guidelines. Maharry said that since the Commission has no control over siding here, it can recommend but not require a different material. McCafferty agreed that the Commission cannot require something other than vinyl siding, however for the trim elements, the guidelines are less specific. Trim is not necessarily the same thing as siding. McCafferty said that for the sake of consistency, the Commission could require wood or approved wood substitute. Weitzel asked if, regarding the fenestration, the Commission could require or recommend more windows for balance and a better appearance. McCafferty responded that there is something in the guidelines about not having large expenses of blank walls on an addition. Carlson stated that the last item under windows in the disallowed section reads under windows it disallows leaving a large expanse of wall surface. He said the Commission could therefore require a difference appearance. Sueppel asked if vinyl windows would be allowed here. Gunn said it is not clear for new buildings. McCafferty said that there are Pella Pro windows that is wood on the inside with vinyl cladding that was used down the street from this property. She said this would be a solid vinyl window, which is not specifically disallowed in a conservation district. She agreed that it is not clear in the old guidelines regarding new construction. Weitzel said he assumed the Commission would not recommend all vinyl windows. McCafferty said it would be good to do more overall research regarding windows in genera[. She said that there are so many variables with regard to quality, price, etc. Maharry asked if, since the Commission can't control the type of window but can only recommend, should the Commission say nothing, since it doesn't have that control. McCafferty said that the Commission does control the style of the window and they could require that there should be a certain width of sash, because one of the issues with the very cheap vinyl windows is that the sash is so thin that it doesn't look appropriate. McCafferty said Spencer had specified Gerken windows for this project. Sueppel stated that Gerken windows do have a wider sash. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 11,2003 Page 3 McCafferty said that to really evaluate the whole window issue would take extensive research, including the long-term energy factor, the replacement issues, the quality of the seal, etc. Sueppel said that a good quality vinyl window is a lot better as far as sealing, R-values, and U-values than a wood window. He said the best quality vinyl window is less expensive than the best quality wood window. He said there are places for wood windows but also said that Gerken is a good quality window. Maharry said the Commission can't control the type of window used but asked if members would like to make a recommendation regarding sash width. McCafferty said that even though there are not specific guidelines regarding this, windows are something the Commission can control with the building permit process. She said the Commission can require that the windows meet certain specifications. Gunn said the Commission could do a lot with architectural style. McCafferty said that the Commission could look at scale drawings of this or a sample of it and compare it to what looks like an historic window. She said the Commission did not have to approve this project at its current meeting. Gunn stated that the Commission did not have to approve this without enough information and shouldn't approve it without information. Maharry asked what type of window is currently on the home constructed by Hughes. McCafferty said that is the Pella Proline. Sueppel said Pella came out with that window to compete with some of the cheaper windows, and it is not a good window. Maharry said the Commission shouldn't recommend a window that is of lower quality or less historic than the Pella windows.. Maharry asked what the guidelines say the Commission can do to prevent or not prevent those windows. Gunn said the Commission has gotten into the habit of trying to find something ironclad to disallow something. He said that would be nice to have here, but the Commission doesn't have to do that. He said the Commission can require windows that look appropriate. Carlson agreed that if something is not specified, what is recommended or disallowed is really the Commission's decision, based on the available information. Gunn said the Commission tried to write down a lot of things to give it something solid to point to in order to disallow something that shouldn't be done, but the Commission doesn't have to have it in solid black and white to disallow something. Weitzel agreed that there are discretionary issues. McCafferty said that is part of the nature of historic preservation, that there will always be circumstances and things that are not anticipated with a variety of factors involved. She said the intent of the guidelines is to provide sufficient black and white information to assist the Commission with fair and rational decisions, but that does not prevent the Commission from deviating from them in unique circumstances.. She said that a number of municipalities have this information in ordinance form, which does not allow for discretion. She said this then leads to problems when they have to disallow something that would be rational but is counter to the ordinance. Maharry said the Commission would probably want to have Spencer bring a sample window to the next meeting. Gunn said if it is a good quality vinyl window that looks like an historic window, he would not have a problem with it. He said the Commission disallowed the vinyl because at the time, everything the Commission knew of just didn't look right. McCallum asked if the Commission wanted to require or recommend more windows on the sides. He agreed that there is a lot of wall space. WeiLzel said the style of this house demands that there be more windows. McCallum said he would also like to see some sort of covering over the rear door. Gunn said the Commission should recommend a rear door covering. Sueppel said it sounds like Spencer is working with McCafferty. He said he did not want to make this an adversarial thing. Sueppel said the Commission is making recommendations to Spencer, and if McCaffedy is working with him, the Commission should go with it as far as it can without putting its foot down and being in conflict. McCafferty said Spencer seems to be amenable to recommendations, and she had suggested some minor changes to him. Weitzel said he believes it is more important to stay within the guidelines and stay within the architectural style and not worry about the outcome. He said the Commission should not get itself in a position where it has to consider the legal issues all the time, because that is not really what the Commission should worry about. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 11, 2003 Page 4 Maharry said it appears that there is no window proposed for the first floor because the owners want to put a television there in the great room. He said, however, that there should be a window opposite the other window. Ponto said that he has discovered, after walking around town and looking at Foursquares, that there are always windows on every side, everywhere. Gunn said there are not always a lot, and they are not always symmetrical, but there are always windows. Ponto said there is never an expanse without a window as is proposed here. McCafferty said if one goes into old houses of this era, every room has a window, including some of the closets. Maharry asked if there were agreement about the left elevation having matching lower level windows to match the right side on the left side. Ponto said there definitely needs to be something there, although he is less concerned that it absolutely match the corresponding other side. He said that would be nice, but he believes it is more important just to make certain there is a window there. Maharry asked if it should be of the same dimension. Weitzel said that even dimension is not such a problem, although it should be consistent with what the style would have - a smaller window for a bathroom and a larger window for a regular room, so it should probably match the other single-pane windows. McCafferty showed a sketch she had come up with, with two bathroom windows and two windows on the left. McCallum said that what McCafferty is proposing is the best idea, but he would be happy with just the two windows to the left, as that would make a big enough improvement. Weitzel stated that he would support either adding two on either side or adding four on both of the sides. Carlson said that with the broader expanse, he would be happier to see the bathroom windows added as well. Ponto said that would be his preference also. Maharry said he wouldn't necessarily require a window on the kitchen side, the right elevation. He said there would be a recommendation for six windows on one side and five windows on the right side. Gunn referred to McCaffedy's memorandum regarding this item. He said it sounds like the Commission is recommending the first and last bullets, the last bullet being the first paragraph on page two, because the Commission doesn't have the guidelines to clearly indicate what should be here. Gunn said they are good ideas, but the Commission might not be comfortable requiring these things. He said that adding the windows, lowering the roof pitch, and requiring the porch to be right are all pretty clear architectural issues that the Commission can recommend require without hesitation. McCallum asked what the 4:12 pitch would look like. McCafferty showed him a sketch of how it would appear. She said that most porches have a lower pitch, 3:12 or 4:12. McCafferty stated that often when people draw up plans for new houses, they try to match everything and don't understand that that is less. She said the roof is currently drawn with two different pitches. McCafferty said a 4:12 pitch is a common pitch for a porch roof. Maharry said the Commission may be willing to approve the bullets as stated by Gunn, but the Commission wants to see the windows. Gunn said the Commission could recommend wood or fiber cement trim and cornerboards without requiring it and approve windows after seeing a sample. McCafferty suggested this item be deferred to the next meeting. MOTION: Weitzel moved to defer to the Commission's next meeting consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal for 401 South Governor Street. Ponto said it was his perception that, for a foursquare, the porch should go all the way across. Carlson said that because the porch goes most of the way across, it is probably acceptable. Weitzel said there are some porches on the same street that go all the way across and some that do not. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION HANDBOOK REVISIONS: Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 11,2003 Page 5 For Section 8.3 in the first paragraph under Architectural Guidelines for New Primary Structures, it was the consensus of the Commission to put the word Section before 9.0 and before 11.0. Weitzel said he did not want to open up a can of worms but asked McCafferty if the Commission needed to get some kind of list from the State Archaeologist's Office of significant archaeological sites in Iowa City so that the Commission could just check to see if one is there before the applications are approved. McCafferty said she would clarify how that would overlap with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. McCafferty asked Weitzel when he would think archaeological surveying would need to be done as it pertains to what the Commission is doing. Weitzel said if the Commission just wants to go with what is already recorded, that is easy, because the list already exists and can be updated on a semi-annual or annual basis. For new potential sites, he said it is anyone's guess as to whether there is something there or not and whether it has been destroyed. McCaffedy said that the time when it might be pertinent is when someone is putting on an addition where there may have been an outhouse or cistern. Weitzel said that is a good example. He said it may be more applicable on large-scale projects. Weitzel said he didn't want to trigger a survey for every addition, but perhaps at a certain level this needs to be looked at and also perhaps run past someone at the OSA or another professional, qualified archaeologist who can perhaps look at a map and judge the probability for a site at a specific location. Maharry said the Commission could match those up currently. He asked Weitzel how many he would guess were in the current districts. Weitzel responded that when he worked for the OSA, people would often tell him that they had a site, but they wouldn't say where it was, which makes it hard to evaluate. He said he knows it is something the Commission has not done before, but he just wanted to bring it up because it is in the Secretary of the Interior Standards. He said it could be handled adequately elsewhere, but he did not think normal building permits triggered the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. McCafferty said that this issue would probably need more research, and she could check with the State Historical Society. Weitzel stated that the Commission could at least see what the State Historical Society thinks should be done. Carlson suggested finding out what other municipalities do. Weitzel stated that Ames has an archaeological ordinance, but he did not know what most other municipalities that have CLGs do to enforce that part of it. Gunn suggested that in Section 8.3, Woodlawn Neighborhood, the first sentence read, "Iowa City guidelines apply to single-family and duplex..." McCafferty said Marlys Svendsen agreed to take a look at the guidelines and offer suggestions. Gunn stated that on page 11 of the guidelines, from the previous packet, the note reads that, "If the guidelines for an individual district have not yet been approved, then the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation will serve in their place. He said that should be deleted, because there are guidelines for each district. Ponto said perhaps it should be retained for when new districts are created. McCafferty said the guidelines would be part of the process of having the district approved. Weitz_el asked if the architectural terms contained a complete list. McCafferty said she is open to suggestions and recommendations for the glossary and elsewhere. Weitzel suggested adding a definition of roof styles, including the definitions of dormer and gable. Maharry discussed the definition in the glossary of a non-historic property and putting a time or age limit on the property. The consensus of the Commission was to change the wording to, "Any noncontributing property within a district that was built after the period of significance." Gunn said if that is not clear, it will be left to the discretion of the Commission. McCaffedy stated that she had a discussion with Svendsen regarding the fact that as different surveyors have looked at different portions and done different nominations, there have been different standards applied to whether a property is contributing, non-contributing, or key and some different definitions. McCafferty said she and Svendsen agreed that it would be good to have someone look at all of the historic districts to make sure the same standards were applied across the board. McCafferty said she drove Svendsen past a couple of houses in the College Green Area that Jan Nash had defined as non- contributing, and Svendsen did not agree with that classification. Weitzel agreed that Nash was much more conservative than Svendsen in her assessment of non-contributing. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 11,2003 Page 6 Maharry said the Commission pays a professional to do the job, and he questioned whether the Commission should pay someone else to redo the job. He said that the job has been done, and hiring someone to do that work is a waste of time. Maharry said that if Commission members want to walk around and look, that's fine, but he would not want to hire someone to come up with brand new guidelines on how the historic districts should be done and how future professionals have to go about each thing. Maharry said that is why they are professionals; they're educated and that's what they were hired for in the first place. McCaffedy said there are a couple of factors. She said the main issue is how the whole historic preservation movement, including how the National Park Service defines things and how the State has come to accept different criteria, has evolved over time. McCafferty stated that the Brown Street nominations are very sparse compared to what the expectations are now. She said part of it is a matter of the profession having evolved. Gunn asked if Svendsen is talking about revising the National Register nominations. McCafferty said that what she herself really cares about is on a local level, and this would involve looking across the board to see if all the criteria have been applied fairly. Gunn asked if Svendsen planned to mostly look at non-contributing properties to see if they should be contributing. McCaffedy said she would also be looking at changes to properties. Gunn asked if Svendsen would also look at all the contributing properties to see if they should be excluded. McCafferty stated that Svendsen would mostly be looking at including more non-contributing properties. Gunn said that would be a fairly small effort, to look at the non-contributing properties, but to look at all of the properties would be a pretty extensive job. McCafferty said the intent is to insure that everyone has been treated consistently. McCafferty asked if the Commission would be opposed to getting a proposal from Svendsen to find out the potential cost of such a review. Weitzel said it is worth it to get an estimate for how long this would take. Gunn said that if it is minimal, there is no harm in looking at it; the Commission doesn't have to take any action yet. Maharry asked if the Commission members could look at those kinds of properties without hiring someone to do it. He said if it is obvious, it should be obvious to the Commission. Sueppel said that is what the Commission exists for, to make these decisions. He said that if there is an obvious discrepancy, McCafferty could bring it before the Commission for a vote. Maharry said Svendsen is not going to gather any more historical information on the structure. He said she is going to look at it and judge it by looks, but the Commission could do that. Carlson suggested that the Commission members do it themselves first. He said that if there is some problem and there is a need for someone to come in and say the ordinance needs to be changed because it is wrong or inconsistent, then the Commission can hire an outside person. McCafferty said she has been reading through reports and nominations and looking at how things have been evaluated. She said it has been a learning process for her, and some of the things she looks at are not always consistent. McCafferty said the areas of concern are College Green and East College. She added that Brown Street was done very long ago, and there has been a lot of change there. McCafferty said that Summit Street is probably not a big concern, because it is so consistent as a district. Gunn said that if the Commission is going to change a few designations, he thought the Commission should amend the maps before the process to amend the guidelines goes through. He said he would not like to see an extremely large change in the guidelines go through the process and then two months later propose changes for a few lone properties. Gunn said if Svendsen has a few properties in mind that she thinks should be changed, the Commission can take a look at those. McCafferty said another issue is key structures. She said if the Commission wants to encourage NRHP designation, than it needs to ensure that keys structures are indeed eligible for the National Register. McCafferty said that for Longfellow, Naumann defines key structures as those that are prominent on the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 11, 2003 Page 7 streetscape, while Svendsen defines a key structure as one that is eligible for the National Register as an individual property. McCallum asked if part of this involved the issue of who owned the property. McCafferty said if the house has cultural significance, that could be a factor. Maharry asked if Svendsen would go back and look at those to see if a properly might be more culturally significant than Naumann believed. He said that is a judgment call. Maharry said if Svendsen is going to say that the history of who lived in that house now makes it contributing and Naumann thought it was not contributing, that is wrong, because that is a professional opinion. He said if the actual physical structure has changed, that is something different. McCafferty said the issue is if the surveyors are applying very different criteria to determine key or not key. Weitzel said it is like someone using English and someone using the metric system. McCafferty said there is a house in Longfellow that is the original quartermaster's residence for the Civil War Camp. She said that it does not fit the district context historically, but on its own, since it is intact, it might very well be eligible for the National Register. McCafferty said that was not recorded in Naumann's data, as she is not a cultural historian but is an architectural historian. McCaffedy said she would get more information on this issue in general for the Commission's consideration. Ponto referred to the glossary and the definition for contributing property. He said that in addition to being an integral part of the historic context and character of the district, the property has to retain a high degree of integrity. Carlson said the addition of that language might be redundant in that if the property has been changed, it won't be part of the historic character, but he would not be opposed to adding the language. Ponto asked if a non-contributing structure could also be an integral part of the historic context and character of the district. Carlson said there could be a non-contributing building that is non-contributing because it has been so altered, but is historically very significant. Weitzel asked, if the building is historically significant because of the person who owned it or lived there, would that not make it a landmark, as opposed to being a contributing building. McCafferty said that Svendsen would be in town doing survey work at the time of the Commission's next meeting. McCafferty asked the Commission if it would like to invite her to the meeting to talk a little bit about her process and how she defines things. The consensus of the Commission was to invite Svendsen to speak to the Commission. McCafferty stated that she did not update much of the glossary since it was done for the previous handbook. She said she was open to suggestions and added that the term "context" might be included in the glossary. Carlson said that the map on page 34 shows Dearborn as an historic district, but it should be listed as a conservation district. He added that district is spelled wrong on the map. Carlson pointed out that the map on page 34 lists the proposed College Hill Conservation District, which should be corrected to delete the word "proposed.". McCafferty said that the maps are not yet complete. Carlson said that there are references on pages 34 and 35 to period revival cottage and period revival house. He asked if that means that in that area, only a period revival cottage but not a period revival house would be appropriate. McCafferty confirmed this distinction, saying it relates to the scale issue. Carlson said the Secretary of the Interior's Standards list 1990 as the date of the most recent version. He said they were actually revised in 1995. Ponto commended McCafferty for the work she had done on the handbook. Maharry said the CLG grant has been put on hold indefinitely. He said the City attorneys are determining whether it would be a conflict of interest for City Council members who own property downtown to vote on this. McCafferty said it has been postponed for consideration until at least next year. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 28, 2003: Weitzel said that in the fourth full paragraph on page four, the second sentence should read, "He said that, in terms of longevity, brick would be better to have than siding to the ground." Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 11,2003 Page 8 Carlson said that on page four in the 1 ,~th full paragraph, the last sentence should read, "Carlson asked if it will look as it does now and without drawings can that be guaranteed." He said that on page seven in the third paragraph under the consideration of the previous meeting's minutes, "history" should not be capitalized. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the minutes of the August 28, 2003 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Gunn seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte MINUTES DRAFT IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2003 - 5:30 P.M. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Saul Mekies, Kimberly Thrower, Terry Smith, Brett Castillo MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Pusack STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Mike Brau, Bob Hardy, Dale Helling, Andy Matthews OTHERS PRESENT: Phil Phillips, Rene Paine, Beth Fisher, Jon Koebrick, Randy Brown, Susan Rogusky, Andy Kromphardt RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL None at this time. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Thrower asked ifa quarterly graphical report could be developed in an effort to decrease the number of re-occurring complaints. Koebrick said that Mediacom is willing to work with the Commission in providing whatever data is desired. Koebrick reported that Mediacom is initiating a local origination channel called Mediacom Connections. The channel will be on the family cable package on channel 68. Paine reported that PATV held a grant writing workshop attended by 15 people. PATV is working with United Action for Youth on a grant and is providing training for them. Training sessions are also being offered to the Senior High Alternative Center. PATV's annual fundraising telethon will take place Sept. 12-14. Rogusky reported that beginning in the Fall, Senior Center programming will generally be of a longer nature rather than centering on programs presented at the Senior Center. In the past the Senior Center programs were generally free but because fees are now charged it is not fair to cablecast the program for free when there is a fee to attend in person. Hardy reported that the Media Unit will be taking a more proactive approach in generating more government programming. In the past, programming was generally initiated by requests for coverage but in the future politically neutral events may be covered on the Media Unit's own initiative. Koebrick said that Mediacom had been hit by a computer vires twice that took down the new call system that is supposed to transfer calls to available customer service representatives in remote locations in case local representatives are unable to take the calls. Shaffer said that the City selected two refranchising consultants as finalists. Additional questions are being developed to address to these finalists in conference calls. The finalists are Rice, William's Associates and Miller, Van Eaton. Koebrick distributed a report on the drop audit and said that the results are generally positive. The largest problem revealed was improper grounding or unverifiable grounds on about 5% of the drops. Signal strength was good. The system is tighter than the national average. This is due, in part, because of the higher system specifications required by advanced services such as digital cable and cable modem service. Matthews said that he will develop a side letter agreement to address the requirements of the franchise regarding the drop audit. Shaffer will review the data. Koebrick reported that the system upgrade has been finished. 56 nodes were added bringing the total to 91 and the capacity was increased to 860 MHz. Iowa City now has a state of the art system. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mekies moved and Thrower seconded a motion to approve the July 28, 2003 meeting minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS Castillo reported that he attended the PATV Board meeting on behalf of the Commission. Castillo said that PATV Board members expressed a desire to have more input in the decision to move a City budget line to the pass-through fund and hope to be able to utilize the pass-through fund themselves in the future. The Board also discussed PATV's role in re-franchising. Castilllo will attend the September PATV Board meeting. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES Shaffer reported receiving 13 complaints Among the complaints were 2 about not being able reach the company on the phone, 1 about multiple outages over the month, 1 about rude customer service representatives, 1 about a billing error and not being called back by the company, 1 about no notifications of burying a cable on personal property, 1 about poor service regarding an installation and an uncoordinated office, 1 about cable modem price discounts if subscribing to cable TV service, 1 about technical personnel not showing up for scheduled appointments, 1 about not receiving a return phone call in response to multiple calls regarding the availability of service in a new development, 1 about the company being unresponsive to a technical problem, 1 about a cable TV technical problem, and 1 about a cable modem technical problem. Thrower asked ifa quarterly graphical report could be developed in an effort to decrease the number of re-occurring complaints. Koebrick said that Mediacom is willing to work with the Commission in providing whatever data is desired. However, some types of complaints are not really complaints that would have a resolution such as a complaint that rates are too high or with service calls. The system Iowa City uses of communicating complaints via email from the City to Mediacom has worked well and Koebrick is working to establish that type of relationship in all cities served by Mediacom. Smith said that tracking the resolution of complaints and the nature and type of complaints would help the Commission follow any trends of complaints. Thrower will work with Shaffer to develop a database of complaints and resolutions. MEDIACOM REPORT Koebrick reported that Mediacom is initiating a local origination channel called Mediacom Connections. The channel will be on the family cable package on channel 68. Mediacom requested that the City waive the 30 day public notice so that the channel can be added sooner. Mediacom is reviewing the City's rate order and will be requesting a meeting with the City to discuss the rate order. Smith will participate in any rate order meeting. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA REPORT Kromphardt reported that the University of Iowa has upgraded their studio and is increasing the number of productions they produce. It is hoped that the programming on the University channel will reflect the activities taking place at the University. PATV REPORT Paine reported that a grant writing workshop was attended by 15 people. PATV is working with United Action for Youth on a gram and is providing training for them. Training sessions are also being offered to the Senior High Alternative Center. The United Nations Association, the Emma Goldman Clinic, and the Woman's Resource and Action Center will be having programs cablecast on PATV. PATV's annual fundraising telethon will take place Sept. 12-14. SENIOR CENTER REPORT Rogusky invited Commissioners to attend the weekly Senior Center TV meetings held on Tuesdays at 11:15. Beginning in the Fall, Senior Center programming will generally be of a longer nature rather than centering on programs presented at the Senior Center. In the past the Senior Center programs were generally fi:ee but because fees are now charged it is not fair to cablecast the program for free when there is a fee to attend in person. Coralville's access channel is now cablecasting 4 hours of Senior Center programming a week. The Senior Center will hold an open house September 18th at 4:30. A number of activities are planned. IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT No representative was present. LEGAL REPORT Matthews said he had nothing new to report. LIBRARY REPORT Fisher reported that Project Greens Second Sunday Garden Forum will begin in September and will be cablecast by the library. The library channel will cablecast a number of series beginning in the Fall including The International Writing Program, the Book Talk Lunches, and the Community Reading Month. KIRKWOOD REPORT No representative was present. MEDIA UNIT Hardy reported that the work on the Senior Center to allow them to originate live programming has been finished. Hardy thanked Mediacom for their assistance with this project. The project was funded with the pass-through fund and benefits all access channels. The Community Television Service has been quite busy. Due to the large number of events recently taped Media Unit staffhave been assisting the CTS on editing those programs. The Media Unit will be taking a more proactive approach in generating more government programming. In the past, programming was generally initiated by requests for coverage but in the future politically neutral events may be covered on the Media Units own initiative. For example, the installation of the Irving Weber statue was recently taped. CABLE TV ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Shaffer noted the draft letter in the packets regarding InfoVision focus groups and said that it was intended as an invitation to Commissioners to participate if they are interested. Mekies said he would like to participate. Shaffer thanked Mediacom for the approximately 1000 spots promoting the county fair. Chey Ness, the Cable Division's newest empolyee and Special Projects Assistant and who also coordinates the avatar Prjoect, was accepted into the Community Leadership Program put on by the Chamber of Commeme. Shaffer asked Koebrick about problems Mediacom experienced answering their phones over the past weeks. Koebrick said that they had been hit by a computer virus twice that took down the new call system that is supposed to transfer calls to available customer service representatives in remote locations in case local representatives are unable to take the calls. REFRANCHISING Shaffer said that the City selected two refranchising consultants as finalists. Additional questions are being developed to address to the finalists in conference calls. The finalists are Rice, William's Associates and Miller, Van Eaton. DROP AUDIT Koebrick distributed a report on the drop audit and said that the results are generally positive. The largest problem revealed was improper grounding or unverifiable grounds on about 5% of the drops. Signal strength was good. The system is tighter than the national average. This is due, in part, because of the higher system specifications required by advanced services such as digital cable and cable modem service. Matthews said that he will develop a side letter agreement to address the requirements of the franchise regarding the drop audit. Shaffer will review the data. SYSTEM UPGRADE Koebrick reported that the system upgrade has been finished. 56 nodes were added bringing the total to 91 and the capacity was increased to 860 MHz. Iowa City now has a state of the art system. ADJOURNMENT Mekies moved and Thrower seconded a motion to adjourn. Adjournment was at 6:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Wm. Drew Shaffer Cable TV Administrator DRAFT MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Craig Gustavesun, Judith Klink, Margaret Loomer, Nancy Ostrognai, Matt Pacha, A1 Stroh, Sarah Walz, John Westefeld STAFF PRESENT: Terry Robinson, Terry Trueblood GUESTS: Karen Dawes, Beth Shields FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Boyd~ seconded by Walz~ to approve the August 13~ 2003 minutes as amended. Unanimous. Moved by Boyd, seconded by Stroh, to accept the 17 acres and the small area abutting Wetherby Park as proposed by the Sandhill Estates developeh along with an area to provide a trail link to Wetherb¥ Park. Unanimous. Moved by Walz~ seconded by Boyd~ to recommend utilization of the remaining funds and any future funds in the parkland acquisition fund to complete a park and recreation master plan. Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - Dog PAC Beth Shields, Vice President of Johnson County DogPAC, addressed the commission with respect to the group's proposal for a dog park in Iowa City. The proposal was presented to the City Council at its informal work session on Monday, September 8, and Shields indicated the group would like the commission to support the proposal. She gave a brief history of the group, which was organized in November 2002 out of a growing awareness and consensus of a need for a place to exercise dogs off-leash legally. She stated the group has a high level of commitment from its members who are willing to help develop and see it through to fruition. The group has incorporated and has applied for 401C-3 status as a tax-exempt non-profit organization. Pacha asked if they had a parcel of land in mind; Shields noted the parcel's location on the map included in the proposal. They initially identified the 40-acre city-owned site with the help of city staff, which is west of the current landfill on Kansas Avenue. This summer the group learned the parcel might not be available because of future intended use by the Public Works Department, but the group is not ready to give up on this piece of land. The City Council directed the City Manager to appoint a staffperson to assist the group in its search for land. The group likes the Kansas Avenue site to develop an off-leash recreational area to facilitate multi-uses. They would like to retum one-half of the area to prairie, put in an accessible trail, and eventually raise funds to build a facility to hold dog sporting events and dog shows. Shields noted the group is willing to take whatever they can get as far as land, but would like a minimum of 5 acres. The proposal would then need to be redone for a dog park as opposed to an off-leash recreational area. Pacha asked if the group was requesting funding from the city; Shields indicated not at this point. The group includes people who are experts at grant writing, and there are many grants available, especially if creating an eco-friendly park or restoring areas to prairies. She stated thc group is not above asking for financial support, but is aware of the city's financial crunch. She noted when they were developing the proposal last year city staff indicated such a project would be considered a capital improvement project. If Parks and Recreation Commission September 10, 2003 Page 2 of 5 the group does not receive any funding from the city it might have to cut back its goals. She noted the major expenses are fencing, paths and parking. Pacha asked about the on-going maintenance. Shields noted the area would be a city park, but the group would be willing to adopt it and would restore part of it to prairie. This will cut back on mowing, and some of the trails would not have to be entirely cleared of snow in the winter. Shields stated the group is willing to do as much maintenance and beautification as they can. Pacha noted the amount of parkland has increased dramatically over the years and staffhas not. Currently staff straggles to keep parkland mowed at a basic level. Shields stated the group would take into consideration what kind of naturalness they want the park to receive. Boyd noted the name of the group is Johnson County DogPAC, and asked if they have worked with other elected officials from the surrounding communities, such as North Liberty and Coralville. Shields noted there are members who live in Johnson County and are not Iowa City or Coralville residents. The group has talked to Coralville, who indicated it is on their horizon but they are not interested in talking about it right now. The Johnson County Board of Supervisors is aware of the group, but the group has not presented the proposal to them. The group is proposing it as an Iowa City park. Boyd stated people from Coralville, North Liberty and Johnson County would use the park and it would be in their interest to offer the same recreational opportunities for their residents. Trueblood expressed concern about additional maintenance, especially in terms of mowing. He noted if the facility was developed in an existing park, it would not be as big an issue as long as there are volunteers to help keep it clean. With respect to the capital improvement program, it was previously stated it would be easier to get funding through it than the operating budget. Trueblood stated a dog park was included on the CIP list, but it was not prioritized very high. He noted at that time there was not an organized group as there is now. Shields indicated she was asking for the commission's support of the idea of a park of some sort and what the group is trying to accomplish. Walz stated the general idea was great, noting it is a good thing for parks in general when people are active and committed. She felt it was a good thing for people who own dogs and also those who don't like dogs because they don't have to be confronted by dogs. Gustaveson stated the commission has been talking about a dog park for the last several years, and he would like the commission to support this idea. Pacha noted the commission could not act formally on the proposal since it was not an agenda item. The consensus of the commission was to support the group's proposal. Westefeld complimented the group on the proposal, which he felt was very thorough and reader-friendly. Pacha asked the group to keep the commission posted. Tmeblood stated a staff person would be in contact with the group in the next few days. SANDIII1,L ESTATES DEVELOPMENT Trueblood gave a brief background of when the property was before the commission previously, at which time the Concerned Citizens for Sand Prairie Preservation was formed. The current developer is proposing to donate 17 acres and a small area abutting Wetherby Park as open space to the city, which exceeds the 2.5- acre N.O.S. requirement. Trneblood acclimated the commission as to the location of the proposed development. He noted Terry Robinson suggested a trail link to Wetherby Park, and pointed out its location. Plans for this area would be to restore the prairie, with the most active use being walking trails. Traeblood noted the historic house and area around this development is still owned by the family, and in the past they have indicated the possibility to donate a portion of it. Parks and Recreation Commission September 10, 2003 Page 3 of 5 Karen Dawes, President of the Concerned Citizens for Sand Prairie Preservation, expressed her appreciation to the commission for their past indication and willingness to accept the land as open space. She noted this will be a unique piece of land, part of a larger tract of land that is a sand prairie and the group is grateful for some of it being preserved. The family, which owns the adjacent 20-acre parcel, is in the process of getting clear title, and has been working with the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation to donate it, with the intention that it would then be donated to the City. She stated this is why Southgate Development has proposed this particular area because the two areas are contiguous. The group feels there needs to be a written agreement regarding controlled bums and that the removal of "junk trees" be allowed. Walz asked if the group would be managing it. Dawes stated they are willing to be helpful by fund raising and giving whatever assistance they can. The group feels it is critical to get something in whting before the land changes hands, that no matter who owns the property, a professional entity would manage the area. They feel there needs to be a written land management plan because of the size, uniqueness and potential for the area being 40 acres. She noted Southgate Development has agreed the group can do plant rescue. The group's hope is that it will be on the planning and zoning agenda on the 18t~, with the process starting thereafter. The group would like to have some sort of plan for plant rescue and replanting and a land management plan for that area also. Trail access would be key so people can ride bikes and the trail would connect to the Iowa River Corridor Trail and Sycamore Regional Trail. Walz noted certain areas on the map and asked if they will be developed as natural areas. Dawes indicated she thought so, noting they are mainly dry areas except when it rains, and she would hope it would be planted with natural plantings. Dawes reiterated that they would like a written agreement before the City accepts - that a professional entity would manage and bum the area. She felt this is important for this development and any future developments. Pacha asked for staff's input. Tmeblood stated he didn't know if Southgate could do any more than to put in writing that this area may be burned, because only the Fire Department can give a permit to bum. Dawes stated another concern is that normally land isn't tamed over to the City until 90 percent of the lots are developed, which could be 10 years. From their standpoint this is a nice amenity, but the prairie needs to be restored and it is imperative that this land be turned over prior to that. They would also ask that the area be fenced so construction work or equipment does not inadvertently damage the area. Walz stated this development differs than others because the prairie is already there, it just needs to be restored. If the City waits 10 years there will be much more work than if it is managed sooner. Moved by Boyd, seconded by Stroh, to accept the 17 acres and the small area abutting Wetherby Park as proposed by the Sandhill Estates developer~ along with an area to provide a trail link to Wetherby Park. Unanimous. Trueblood stated staff would work with the developer to put in a trail connection, and as things progress staffwill work with the Concerned Citizens for Sand Prairie Preservation. PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN Pacha noted that at last month's commission meeting it was briefly discussed to move forward with funds remaining in the parkland acquisition fund to complete a master plan. Trueblood noted that unless things worsen budget-wise, the City Manager has proposed that the parkland acquisition fund grows each year through hotel/motel taxes. Currently there remains $50,000 and next year there would be a minimum of $62,000. Pacha asked for an estimate on the cost for completion of a master plan. Trueblood noted it would cost a minimum of $60,000, and two consultants indicated it could be closer to $80,000 if it includes a community-wide survey. Gustaveson stated there needs to be a road map to know where we are going. Parks and Recreation comrmssion September 10, 2003 Page 4 of 5 Stroh stated that if it is done fight it would be an investment in the future. Walz stated the process would involve community input, and it would be an opportunity for people to become aware of the commission's thoughts and limitations the department is working with. Moved by Walz~ seconded by Boyd~ to recommend utilization of the remaining funds and any future funds in the parkland acquisition fund to complete a park and recreation master plan. Unanimous. Tmeblood noted this is only a recommendation to the City Council and his only concern if it is approved is that staff will need to come up with another funding source to make up the shortfall. Pacha suggested borrowing the shortfall from the annual park maintenance fund. Trueblood noted another possibility may be the C1P budget. WATERWORKS PRAIRIE PARK Walz reported they have a group of volunteers, money and seed. They thought it would be a good opportunity to raise awareness of the park and get public involvement by planting the seed late this fall - probably sometime in November. She asked if this would be possible and if so, if the city would be willing to prepare the land. Pacha asked how the land would be prepared; Walz stated Russ Bennett's plan is tilling. Tmeblood asked about the size of the area; Walz indicated it would be no more than six acres. Tmeblood stated arrangements could be made, noting Russ Bennett will be renting equipment to till up the areas around the ponds and could do another area for the group. Walz noted they have identified the area around the parking lot entrance. She asked if the second or third week in November would be a good time; Robinson felt it would be appropriate. Klink asked about November 4; Robinson stated it would depend on the weather. Walz stated she would ask the volunteers to see what dates work best for them. COMMISSION TIME Klink noted the small prairie in Kiwanis Park is coming up nicely. She also stated the Miller/Orchard neighborhood is eager to begin planning for the park. She reported that Southgate Development mowed the Harlocke Park, which has not yet been accepted by the City. She stated there are still lots of big stones and tree trunks that need to be removed, and asked about the timeline for acceptance. Tmeblood noted the developer wanted the City to accept it quite some time ago, but it wasn't ready. Robinson stated the land should not be accepted until the large stones and tree trunks were removed. Klink stated she would inform Southgate Development. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Tmeblood reported on the following: Cit~ Park Rides. The train's odometer has registered 2,000 miles as compared to 900 miles last year. Waterworks Prairie Park REAP Grant. The grants have been scored, but staff has not heard anything yet. Coraiville Parks and Recreation Tour. The commission has been invited to their park tour on September 15, and members need to notify them by Friday, September 12 if they plan on attending. BIC Letter. The group feels it is a high priority that the trail link-up be funded and completed between Waterworks Prairie Park and Foster Road. This project does appear on the Commission's CIP priority list. Walz noted the Parks and Recreation Foundation should identify such groups it should be working with in order to involve these project-oriented people on its team. Parks and Recreation comrmssion September 10, 2003 Page 5 of 5 Dog Paddle Event. The event was a success, with 356 dogs in attendance. Kiwanis Park. Staff is working with Old Capital Kiwanis Club to create a memorial in the very north end of the park. John Dane brought in a concept drawing, similar to the Hospice Memorial, but on a smaller scale. Staff Member Recognition. Mike Moran has reached his 20-year anniversary of employment with the city. OTHER BUSINESS Walz asked about next month's park tour; Tmeblood asked members to e-mail him with sites they would like to include on the tour. Gustaveson noted the commission had discussed inviting City Council members and successful candidates, and urged commissioners to contact council members to invite them. ADJOURNMENT Thc meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Fl[ .ED Presented by: Latham & Associates, Inc. 2003 SEP 16 AH 8:55 Final Report CITY CLERK IOWA CITy IOWA Preliminary Municipalization Feasibility Study for the City of Iowa City, Iowa Presented to the City and the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities September 15, 2003 Latham & Associates, Inc. 150 First Avenue NE - Suite 300 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 Tel: 319-365-6488 Fax: 319-365-7086 E-Mail: Ervinlr@Worldnet. Aa. Net Lathamrj@Aol.Com Municipalization Feasibility Study for the City of [- fo a CTty 003 SEP I G 8:55 Ove iew CITY CLERK IOWA r, rm, This report is a summary of the investigation of the feasibility of establishing new municipal electric utilities in Iowa. This study for the City of Iowa City (City) is part of a Joint Municipalization Feasibility Study for nineteen Iowa cities through the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities (IAMU). Although there are common issues for cities considering forming municipal electric utilities, significant differences among cities are reflected in the study results. The MidAmerican Energy Company (MEC) and Interstate Power and Light Company (1PL) have zonal/system retail rates that are different for various rate zones/systems. Generation or power supply costs may vary depending on city location on an MEC transmission line. The voltage levels at which cities would receive transmission services are also different and have differing rates. Customers of individual cities have usage characteristics that differ from those in other cities. This study specifically assesses these generation, transmission, rate and usage pattern differences and how the differences impact the economic feasibility for each study city. This study compares the annual projected municipal electric utility costs that must be recovered from the City customers to the estimated aggregate electric charges paid by the City customers to the incumbent electric utility. The economic feasibility model provides a Net Present Value of the estimated annual cost savings or losses resulting from formation of a municipal electric utility. From a financial perspective, if the Net Present Value of the savings is zero, this means that all the costs of electric system acquisition and operation would be paid, including the costs of financing. A Net Present Value of greater than zero implies that there is a projected financial gain to the City by forming a municipal electric utility and that financial gain can be used to lower electric rates to customers or for other community purposes. The key financial issue for each potential new municipal electric utility is estimated net savings. The difference between estimated new utility retail revenues and incumbent utility retail revenues provides an estimate of expected net savings. As developed in the text, the estimation of the Net Present Value of establishing a new municipal electric utility for the City provides an overall sense of the prospective financial viability of a municipal utility through time. This report addresses only direct financial benefits anticipated from establishing a new municipal electric utility and it does not assess the value to citizens from having local control of electric costs, a utility focus on local economic development, and increased local jobs. Finally, this report does not consider the prospect of local in-lieu of tax transfers to the City's general fund. These in-lieu of tax transfers would be contributions over and above the replacement property taxes to be paid by the City municipal utility that would replace the property taxes currently paid by MEC CityofIowa City Municipalization Study Page 1 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 Economic Feasibility Major Drivers ~nn, A major driver of economic feasibility for a prospective municipal elec~_~ti~[y~l~ t~,he market price for available wholesale power relative to regulated Market prices can be significantly above or below utility rates &~J~t~ Regulated incumbent utility rates can also change at distinct times as approved by the Iowa Utilities Board. This report uses a 25-year time horizon, which dampens some of the expected short-term variability of market prices and utility rates. Wholesale power supply/generation market prices used in this study are based on fixed-price contracts for similarly-situated Iowa municipal electric utilities for the near-term of five years and are escalated after that to reflect projected inflationary increases over the longer-term. Incumbent utility rates used in this study are based on current rates for the short-term, with zonal rate differences removed and rates equalized over four years and then escalated over the longer-term to reflect projected inflationary increases. Another major driver of economic feasibility is the level of stranded generation costs that the new municipal electric utility may be required to pay the incumbent utility. At the time the City would be acquiring generation capacity, MEC does not have excess generation according to its formal filings with its regional reliability council, the Mid~ Continent Area Power Pool for the 25 year period of the study. Its filings, if any, with the Iowa Utilities Board since 1998 are not available to the public. For MEC, there is a projected longer-term shortage of generation capacity to meet its projected retail electric loads. Therefore, if the City forms a municipal electric utility, MEC will still have a generation capacity deficiency over the study period. Further, the incumbent utility, MEC, will almost certainly be asked to be a bidder for supplying power to the new municipal electric milky. Even if there were stranded generation of MEC, the new City utility will be offering competitive prices to acquire that capacity. In summary, for study purposes, for MEC to have a valid claim for stranded generation costs it must demonstrate that it will have excess generation if the City load is no longer served by MEC and the value of the excess generation if sold into the market is less than MEC's generation costs included in its retail rates. Neither of these claims is believed to apply for the City study. Impact of Electric Industry Changes This study reflects cost and operational impacts associated with recent major changes in the power industry and how those developments are expected to affect long-term electric prices and reliability of service for prospective municipal electric utilities. Perhaps the most significant is that the market for electric generation, the transmission system operations, and the regulatory environment are materially different today and continue to change in the direction of more competitive options available to the City. Electric generation is now available on the competitive market. Numerous power plants have been built, particularly in neighboring states, by independent power suppliers for the City &Iowa City Municipalization Study Page 2 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 FILED competitive market. For the short term, Iowa investor-owned, rural electric cooperative, and municipal electric utilities may also have power generation available in the ~p t 6 ~[~1 8: The competitive power supply market is a relatively new phenomenon that developed after the transmission system was opened on a non-discriminatory basis for wholesli~q~/ C&~F~( power transactions, such as a City municipal utility purchase of wholesale pov~l[ CtT¥ I©WA delivery at retail to its customers. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has primary rate jurisdiction over wholesale power and use of the transmission grid. The FERC has encouraged local transmission system operators, such as MEC, to participate in the regional transmission system network through independent system operators such as the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO). IPL is already a MISO member and MEC had proposed MISO participation through an independent transmission company, TRANSLink. That may not be the final organization of the Iowa transmission system, particularly for MEC, but the general outline of an independently operated regional transmission system is reasonably obvious given recent and expected events. Very recently, there have been concerns about regional transmission reliability with the August, 2003 transmission-based electric black-out in the mid-east and east. While the roles of MEC and 1PL in the regional transmission system are not definitive, it is very likely that the black-om will bring greater pressure for an integrated regional transmission system including pressures on MEC and IPL to participate. This participation is expected to be on continuing terms of non-discriminatory access and competitive rates for the transmission system for municipal utilities and joint purchasing groups of such municipal utilities. These rates and other terms are expected to be on the same bases as transmission is available for IPL and MEC for their continuing retail customers. Joint Study - Individual City Results Although the study model is consistent in application for each study city, significant differences among cities are reflected in the study results. An engineering field review of the electric distribution system for each city was made to value individual distribution lines and substations for that city. Valuations reflect cost and vintage differences for individual city electric facilities. Analyses also include estimated costs to re-integrate the incumbent utility's system. With the recent advent of significantly lower real-time metering and improved metering technology, in many cases advanced metering can be used as a very cost-effective alternative to reconstructing local distribution systems to accommodate the City's municipalization. Each city has it own mix of residential, business and industrial electric customers and all of these have differing electric usage characteristics that can materially impact the overall cost of serving electricity within an individual community. The study recognizes that the incumbent utility rates are different for each of the multiple rate zones and for each customer class and the individual city usage data and rates are those for the relevant rate zone. When available, actual rates from larger customer bills were used and adjusted to City of Iowa City Municipalization Study Page 3 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 FI ED the current rates paid by those larger customers within the city. Where such actual bills were not available and billing data from comparable larger customers those billing data were used as estimates for the missing billing data. For determination- of peak loads and necessary generation and transmission capacity for each(~t~'~ excellent customer class load research data, as filed with the Iowa Utiliti~)~tr(~l~.~r~-'(~'~/~ used to reflect usage characteristics of each customer rate class. MEC load research d~ta"' were not available for this study. These IPL load research data were adjusted to reflect the overall MEC Iowa system load factor relative to that of the IPL system. These data were adjusted for known peak and load data for larger customers within the city. Generation and transmission costs for each city are reflective of usage characteristics for that city in its incumbent utility rate zone, at its expected delivery voltage level and at its point of delivery from the transmission system. Bases for Municipal Utility Valuations Valuation is essential in establishing a price for the City to acquire the MEC local distribution system, including lines, meters and substations, to form a municipal electric utility. There are numerous possible ways to look at the bases for valuation of the systems. Among these alternatives are the concepts of Replacement Cost Depreciated and the concept of Original Cost Depreciated. As its name implies, Original Cost refers to the investment cost to MEC at the time utility property was devoted to utility service. This investment may have been made 10, 20 or 40 or more years ago. In the meantime, that property would have been significantly depreciated. Presumably, the utility has recovered that depreciation in the regulated rates it has charged to its customers. Presumably, the utility has also realized a financial rate of return on the un-depreciated balance of that property though regulated rates. Therefore, the concept of Original Cost Depreciated is the Original Cost of utility property investment net of Accumulated Depreciation. It is a measure of the remaining net investment to the utility on the general basis on which the utility or its presumed successor is allowed a regulated return on that investment in its rates. By contrast, Replacement Cost refers to the investment cost today of utility property that would be used for the same functions and purposes as the existing utility property that is the subject of valuation. It reflects current technology and is presumably the alternative available if the local distribution system would actually be replaced. Conceptually, however, the system to be acquired is not new so adjustment to the replacement cost is necessary to reflect the age of the system. This is accomplished by starting with the Replacement Cost, identifying the vintage of the utility investment and reducing the Replacement Cost by the amount of Depreciation that would have been accrued for that Replacement Cost. The Depreciation would be for property of that vintage or year with the relevant expected lives for the property. Because there are differences of opinion regarding which of these alternatives is preferred for valuation purposes, summary results for the study include both methods. These City oflowa City Municipalization Study Page 4 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 FILED summary results are included in Schedules 1 and 2 for Replacement Cost Depreciated and Original Cost Depreciated valuations, respectively. 2003 SE? I 6 AH 8:55 CITY Municipal Ufilit~ Operatienal AssnBptiens iL, t:RK IOWA CID, IOWA Fundamental to the study are the assumptions regarding how the City would operate the municipal electric utility upon acquisition. One alternative operational model is for the City to acquire all of the needed generation plant, equipment, personnel, training, operations facilities, computer systems, risk management expertise and emergency services upon acquisition of the City system. Alternatively, the City could acquire these facilities and services through other entities either under contract with the City or as an agent for the City. Presumably, the City will choose the alternative or a combination of alternatives that is the most economical, presuming comparable reliability of the system. For study purposes, Operations and Maintenance expenses and Administrative and General expenses were estimated as if all or most of these services were provided under contract with outside vendors. This may marginally overstate estimated costs and understate estimated savings. The electric generation and transmission markets provide opportunities for the City to acquire needed generation and transmission as part of a larger purchasing pool group or as an individual entity. The assumption in the study is that the City chooses to join an existing municipal utility power supply purchasing pool and to have that pool provide electric power on a delivered basis to the municipal utility. This very significantly reduces the operations requirements and the risk management requirements of the municipal utility. This provides assurance to the City that the resulting power supply is as dependable as the power supply from its current incumbent utility, MEC. It also assures the City that it is obtaining power supplies from financially viable suppliers that are at least as strong financially as the incumbent utility. Under these assumptions, as the City chooses to own generation capacity itself or to invest in generation and transmission projects, it can do so as it wishes without the necessity of making such ownership purchases at the time of system acquisition. Operating equipment, including line trucks, and the associated personnel are available in the market from a number of entities. Indeed, the incumbent utility offers these services to other municipal utilities. Other municipal utilities and rural electric cooperatives are willing to provide such services as necessary. Tree trimming and construction and maintenance line services from independent contractors are also readily available in the market and are often used by investor-owned utilities as well. Emergency or storm restoration services are also available under contract with other utility entities or from independent contractors. Municipal utilities, in particular, typically have operating pacts with other utilities for these emergency and storm restoration services. The IAMU coordinates a mutual aid program for its 13 7 member electric municipal utilities in Iowa. Specialized equipment and computer services are also readily available. These services may be available from an existing electric utility that specialized in these services or City oflowa City Municipalization Study Page 5 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 FILED through joint purchasing with other similar utilities. It may also be possible to obtain some of these services from another City utility. 2003 During the course of this study, numerous vendors have offered their potential use of a city in establishing a municipal electric utility. willing to provide generation on competitive pricing terms. The transmission system is an evolving but non-discriminatory open-access system. For these reasons, the primary study operational assumption is that the City chooses to commence its municipal utility primarily with outsourced services from these alternatives from reliable and competitive vendors. The power supply in particular is assumed to be part of an existing purchasing pool power supply with fixed prices for five years. This results in delivery of power with the same reliability as from MEC and from a power supplier that is at least as strong financially as the incumbent utility. If the City chooses to increasingly take on more operational responsibility internally, it presumably would do so if there are savings compared to these outsourced alternatives. In that sense, using reliable estimates of costs from reputable vendors provides a benchmark for comparison purposes regarding these operations. City-Specific Assumptions For convenience, selected assumptions for the City municipalization study are summarized in Schedule 21, Electric Franchise and City-Specific Information. These data include the rate zone in which the City receives electric service from the incumbent electric utility. The most recent Census population data are included. The anticipated voltage level for delivery of power to the City is included along with the corresponding estimated wholesale prices for power supply delivered to the City delivery point at that voltage. The estimated City electric load factor is included. Replacement property taxes are among the other City-specific data presented in Schedule 21. Other City specific information includes the status of the current electric franchise with MEC Other existing City utilities are included. Finally, some potential suppliers of local distribution system support services are listed when available to reflect potential equipment and personnel sharing opportunities. Engineering Field Study of the City System Attached is the Prospective Municipal Electric Service Area map of the City. This map reflects the streets that are within the City distribution system boundaries that were used in the study. This street map was used to estimate primary electric service lengths. Engineering field checks were made to determine the proposed service boundaries of the prospective new municipal utility. These generally follow City limits boundaries. Electronic city street maps were used to develop street and distribution circuit footages, using a factor of 70 percent of the street lengths to estimate lengths of the primary City of Iowa City Municipalization Study Page 6 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 FI _.ED distribution circuits. This ratio was used based on detailed engineering field checks in two of the study cities. Engineering field checks were made to assess the distribution circuit types by number of phases and those circuits whether of overhead or underground construction. Global positioning system methods were used to lengths of the 34.5 kV and 69 kV transmission and sub-transmission circuits, acquired. These field checks were also made to assess the substations to be acquired and the substation voltage levels and for original cost and replacement cost purposes. If substations were to be shared with MEC, this field check was usefi~l in estimating the relevant facilities charges for that shared service. The distribution system was mapped by sector and the approximate vintage of construc- tion was recorded for each sector to improve the accuracy of determining aggregate system investments by vintage and the corresponding depreciation. Engineering field assessments and cost estimates were made to determine new distribution construction and/or primary metering points and metering/electronic equipment necessary to re- integrate the incumbent utility distribution system. Estimated Valuation Methods for the City System Estimated valuations of the distribution facilities within the City were made at Original Cost Depreciated and at Replacement Cost Depreciated levels. The 2002 Handy- Whitman Index of Public Utility Construction Costs provides estimates of electric utility construction costs for distribution plant in the North Central geographic region of the U.S. This Index has been published since 1924 and is widely used by utilities, regulatory agencies and construction engineers. In this study, this Index was used in the estimation of original costs. Estimated new construction unit cost data for 2004 were applied to the circuit footage to estimate the replacement costs of the distribution system to be acquired. Estimated engineering valuations were prepared for meters, services, distribution transformers, lighting and substations that principally serve customers within the City. Municipal Utility Load Data The estimation of the electric load in the City is relatively straightforward. Because kilowatt (kW) peak loads and kilowatthour (kWh) energy requirements are not available from MEC for the purposes of this study, systematic methods of peak load and energy estimation were required. Fortunately, as note, current load research data are publicly available from IPL for Residential, Commercial and Industrial classes of customers. These data provide monthly peaks, times of peaks and typical hourly energy use by class. They also provide information on the diversity of the times of peaks between the classes of customers. Because of this diversity at times of peaks, a municipal utility would plan for the load of Cityoflowa City Municipalization Study Page 7 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 FILED the total system and that total load would be less than the sum of the indivi~l~al class peaks because of the diversity of times of monthly peaks by class. The load resd~bS~ 6 /~[ 8: are summarized in Schedule 8, Interstate Power & Light Load Research 2002. Publicly available data also include the kWh energy use per customer by cla~)~l~ I~T~, /0Wfi~ each system rate zone for MEC. The Residential and Commercial data match the data used for the load research. Therefore, using these rate zone kWh data per customer and combining the information from the load research on kW per kWh of energy usage, the kW peak per customer by customer class was estimated for each of these classes. For the larger, primarily industrial and large commercial/public customers, actual billing data from these customers or estimates of their billing data from comparable customers were used to estimate the peak kW demand and the kWh energy usage of the Large General Service/Industrial/Major Accounts class. These data were adjusted, where necessary, to reflect the diversity of peak usage of this class compared to the City system as a whole. Lighting kWh energy usage estimates were based on the number and type of lights billed to the City and the number of burning hours. These usage levels are comparable to those that are listed in the MEC retail tariff Since the outdoor lighting is not assumed to be used during peak periods, there are no estimated peak kW demands for lighting. The kWh usage estimates for Lighting are included in Schedule 10, Street Lights. The final information required to estimate kW peak and kWh energy usage in the City is the number of customers for each customer class. These customer numbers were developed from water, natural gas or sewer customer data, where these data were available. From U. S. Census 2000 data, population data and population/housing data were used as cross checks on the customer numbers. From these data, the annual kW peak and the kWh energy data for the City were developed. Those usage data are summarized in Schedule 6, Projection of Billing Data, Customers, kW, kWh. For the City, the resulting estimated overall yearly system load factor is reflected in Schedule 21, Electric Franchise and City-Specific Information. Municipal Utility Generation Capacity and Energy Requirements The municipal utility generation capacity and energy requirements follow from the peak demand kW and the kWh energy usage data. In the power pool, it is assumed that a reserve requirement of 15 percent above the projected kW peak load is required for generation to provide for power pool contingencies. Further, that peak demand plus 15 percent reserves is the assumed generation requirement for power on a basis as delivered to the customers. From the customer meter to the transmission delivery point of the City, kWh energy and kW peak losses are assumed to be 3.5 percent. In addition, to the source of generation at the generator City of Iowa City Municipalization Study Page 8 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 FILED busbar, there are additional transmission and transformer losses. These losses are estimated at 4 to 5 percent depending on the voltage level at the City's deli~l~t/6 A~/ 8: From these estimates of peak kW demand, additions necessary for reserve requirements, and provisions for losses from the generator to the customers, the requirements and the energy requirements for purchased power were estimat~)Wl~ae~7'y~ data are presented in Schedule 4, Purchased Power Projected Costs. General Study Model The study is designed to measure the estimated differences over a twenty-five year period between the electric costs from a City municipal electric utility and electric costs from continuing with the existing incumbent electric utility, MEC. The costs of the electricity in either case are the delivered costs of electricity, assuming comparable levels of generation, transmission reliability, emergency services and taxes or tax- equivalents paid in the City and community. All costs and revenues are based on 2004 estimated dollars. For purposes of the study, year 1 is assumed to be 2004. For the City, the costs include the estimated full costs of operating the electric system as a municipal utility compared to the full costs of continuing service from an incumbent electric utility. The approach is designed to be an objective analysis of the full costs of these competing alternatives. No other alternatives are compared. No non- financial considerations such as local employment and local provision of services are included. The financial comparison is measured as the Net Present Value, plus or minus, of the municipal system versus the incumbent system. If the Net Present Value is positive, this is the equivalent of a one-time benefit to the City that can either be used to lower electric rates through time compared to the incumbent utility's rates or can be used for local City improvements or other City purposes. If the Net Present Value is negative, this is the equivalent ora one-time cost to the City that can either be recouped through higher electric rates through time compared to the incumbent utility's rates or can be recouped at the expense of other City activities. Importantly, the expected growth rate of electric usage in the City is also included. This Net Present Value estimate starts with the yearly, over twenty-five years, net savings or extra costs from the municipal system versus continuing on the MEC system. Each of these net savings or costs is discounted back to the present using a discount rate that is the estimated after-tax cost of money for the municipal system taken as a whole. The study model consists of the following main components: I. Estimated New Municipal Utility Capital and Finance Costs: City oflowa City Municipalization Study Page 9 By: Lgham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 FILED a. Local System Acquisition Buyout Costs b. Local System Re-integration Costs and Continuing Capital 20DJ 8[P 1 6 /llq 8:56 Improvements CiTY CLERK c. Acquisition Buyout Finance Payments for Principal IOWA CITY, IOWA d. Re-integration and Continuing Capital Improvement Finance Payments for Principal e. Working Capital Costs and Finance Payments for Principal 2. Estimated New Municipal Utility Operating Expenses: a.Wholesale Purchased Power Costs of Generation Delivered to the City b. Transmission Costs of Purchased Power Delivered to the City c. Power Supply System Losses to the City Delivery Point d.Distribution Operation and Maintenance Costs from the City Power Supply Delivery Point to Customers e. Customer Accounting, Administrative and General Costs £ Buyout Amortization Costs g. Distribution System Depreciation Costs h. Buyout Non-Tax Preference Interest Costs i.Re-integration and Continuing Capital Improvement Tax-Preference lnterest Costs j. Working Capital Tax-Preference Interest Costs k. Replacement Delivery Property Tax Costs 1. Regulatory Costs of Municipalization m Operations Start-up Costs n. Power Supply Start-up Costs Including Metering 3. Estimated Incumbent Utility Retail Revenues Using Available Information on Local Electric Usage and Rates Paid 4. Estimated City Annual Savings as the Annual Difference Between Municipal Utility Operating Expenses and Incumbent Utility Retail Revenues 5. Estimated Net Present Value of 25-Year Annual Savings Discounted to the Present Using an After-Tax Long-Term Discount Rate City oflowa City Municipalization Study Page 10 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 FILED Municipal Utility Capital and Finance Costs 20~ SE? 16 ~t~ 8:56 Local System Acquisition Buyout Costs are summarized in the following ~l~qdt~K Investment Summary. This includes estimates of the buyout costs, of the ~.~.c~t~.' r~©wA, bution system based on both a Replacement Cost Depreciated and an Original Cost Depreciated basis. The Replacement Costs, in 2004 dollars, of the respective items of the buyout are also presented here. In addition, the estimated buyout costs include a 10 percent adder for contingencies and for the costs of issuing financing to acquire these facilities. As discussed above, the incumbent utility does not have excess generation capacity for the study period and there is no anticipated market loss of its sale of generation capacity. Therefore, there are no stranded generation costs in this estimate, as presented in Schedule 18, Stranded Generation. Distribution system costs are from Schedule 12, Distribution System Mapping. These Replacement Cost Depreciated and Original Cost Depreciated estimates are based on the observed vintage decades of respective overhead or underground line construction at varying delivery voltage and single or multiple phase levels. As noted above, the lengths of these respective local distribution facility types were measured using on-site inspections and taking advantage of street maps and a global positioning system for measurement as relevant. These lengths of distribution system were valued at current replacement costs. They were then adjusted to the costs for the corresponding vintage decade using the Handy-Whitman index for that decade, from Schedule 13, Handy- Whitman Index. This method was used for both the Replacement Cost Depreciated and the Original Cost Depreciated estimates. The relevant Depreciation for each of these measures was then subtracted to arrive at the Replacement Cost Depreciated and the Original Cost Depreciated estimates. For this purpose, the Depreciation rate was 3.37 percent on a 29.7 year estimated life of the facilities from utility data. Lighting system costs are from Schedule 10, Street Lights. This schedule includes types of lighting and estimated numbers of lighting fixtures along with their current replacement costs for fixtures, lamps, photocells, wires, poles, and conduit. Security lights and the corresponding poles are assumed to be used by 10 percent of the City electric customers. As with the distribution system, both Replacement Cost Depreciated and Original Cost Depreciated estimates were developed. These were estimated using the distribution system relationships between current replacement costs and the corresponding Replacement Cost Depreciated and Original Cost Depreciated costs. Metering costs are from Schedule 14, Meters, Services, Secondary and Transformers. Estimates were made of installed meters, services, secondary and transformer costs for each of the customers in each customer class. As with the lighting system, both Replacement Cost Depreciated and Original Cost Depreciated estimates were prepared using the distribution system relationships between current replacement costs and the corresponding Replacement Cost Depreciated and Original Cost Depreciated costs. Cityoflowa City Municipalizahon Study Page 11 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 AS presented in Schedule 11, distribution, lighting, m~ering, secondary and transformer Inventory is estimated at 3 percent of the 2004 replacement costs of the Cit~0~,~;~l~t~ ~,~.~ 6 without adjustment for depreciation. 8.' Substation investment costs are from Schedule 16, Valuation of Substations. T(~ extent that a substation is assumed to be purchased, these were valued at rep~t/Jl~n~lTy costs that were then adjusted, based on the Handy-Whitman Index in Schedule 13 and the assumed depreciation rate of 3.37 percent, to arrive at Replacement Cost Depreciated and Original Cost Depreciated estimates. To the extent that a substation is also assumed to be used to continue to deliver power to incumbent utility customers, there is a charge if ownership remains with MEC Conversely, there is a credit to the City if it acquires the substation, to reflect the value of the service of providing that continuing service for the benefit of MEC. Sub-transmission investment costs are from Schedule 17, Transmission and Sub- transmission Valuation. To the extent that transmission or sub-transmission lines are assumed to be purchased, these were valued at replacement costs that were then adjusted, based on the Handy-Whitman Index in Schedule 13 and the assumed depreciation rate of 3.37 percent, to arrive at Replacement Cost Depreciated and Original Cost Depreciated estimates. System Reintegration costs are included in Schedule 15, Projected Reintegration Costs. These are the costs, as mitigated by the incumbent utility, of reintegrating the MEC system operationally after the City acquisition of the local system. With current technology, with the relatively low cost of real-time metering and monitoring equipment, the incumbent utility's system can often be reintegrated electronically rather than through more costly additional lines and facilities. These estimated metering costs, as relevant, are presented in Schedule 15. To the extent that new circuits are necessary for reintegration of the MEC system, those costs are also presented in Schedule 15. Continuing Capital Improvements are included in Schedule 3, Capital Account Replacement (page 1) or Original (page 3) Cost Depreciated Assets and Liabilities. These Improvements are included as part of the Investment Assets column. These continuing capital improvements are assumed to be tied to the current undepreciated replacement costs of the distribution system, meters and lighting and are calculated at one-half of the system growth rate to reflect the incremental additions for a system that is already significantly developed. Working Capital requirements are included in Schedule 3, Capital Account Replacement (page 1) or Original (page 3) Cost Depreciated Assets and Liabilities. Working capital is included in the Cash Working Capital Column. Working capital is estimated at a net of 15 days of revenue for the City municipal electric utility. Acquisition Buyout Finance Payments for Principal are reflected in Schedule 3, Capital Account Replacement (page 2) or Original (page 4) Cost Depreciated Assets and Liabilities. These overall Buyout costs to be financed are reflected in the Buyout Account columns of these pages. These Buyout costs are assumed to be repaid over 25 years at 4 percent per year. Yearly Buyout Principal Payments are reflected in the Principal Payments columns of those pages. Cityoflowa City Municipalization Study Page 12 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 Re-integration, Continuing Capital Improvement and Working Capital FiRxace[ Payments are reflected in Schedule 3, Capital Account Replacement (page 2) or Or~l~a~ (page 4) Cost Depreciated Assets and Liabilities. These capital costs to be financed are reflected in the Investment Account and Working Capital Columns of these pages.iA,T~'I'Y repayment schedule for these investment costs is over 25 years at 4 percent per year. L'~/~ yearly Principal Payments are reflected in the Principal Payment column of those pages. The Remaining Balance in these accounts is included in a column with that name on those pages. Buyout costs and other investment costs are separated in this analysis. The interest rate to be paid on the buyout costs is at a non-tax-preference rate. The interest rate to he paid on the other investment costs is at a tax-preference rate. Municipal Utility Operating Expenses Wholesale Purchased Power Costs of Generation Delivered to the City are included in Schedule 4, Purchased Power Projected Costs. As discussed above, the City is assumed to initially purchase power under medium term contracts rather than immediately acquire its own generation. The purchased power terms and conditions are from numerous market sources but particularly reflect a current contract for the joint purchase of power by a group of Iowa municipal utilities that have the power delivered to the delivery points at the cities. That contract is for five years and will commence in 2004. The City may negotiate an actual power supply contract from an alternative supplier on terms that are more or less favorable than this contract. The power supply prices for power delivered to the delivery point are assumed to increase 2 percent per year from the 2004 base year 1 of the study. The 2004 delivered power supply costs per kW of demand and per kWh of energy are presented in Schedule 21, Electric Franchise and City-Specific Information. Schedule 4 includes the development of the purchased power costs. Transmission Costs of Purchased Power Delivered to the City are included in the purchased power costs presented in Schedule 4. Those resulting delivered purchased power costs in Schedule 4 include all estimated generation costs, transmission costs and relevant directly assigned facilities charges for the power as delivered to the City delivery point. The delivery point reflects the assumed Wholesale Delivery Voltage in kV as noted in Schedule 21. The City is assumed to purchase transmission services as part of a municipal utility purchasing pool with the power supplier acting as the City's agent for all of the transmission procurement, power supply dispatching and other requirements for the delivery of dependable power supply to the City. These are services that MEC currently provides as agent for a pool of municipal utilities using a real-time information system owned by the pool. While MEC will be replaced as agent in 2004, those services will be provided by the successor power supplier, Ameren Energy Marketing, to relieve the municipal utilities from providing for these delivery services on their own and for assuring a dependable supply of power from a financially-strong supplier. City oflowa City Municipalization Study Page 13 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 FILED Power Supply System Losses to the City Delivery Point are, as noted above, included in the total delivered power supply to the assumed City delivery point ai~ll~tPo~t~ge~ level. See Schedule 4 for estimated delivered power supply costs. Distribution Operation and Maintenance Costs from City Power Point to Customers are presented in Schedule 5, Projected Expense ~)~p~l~ Maintenance. These distribution O & M costs were developed using estimates of equipment and personnel and substation facilities charges, as relevant. The rates for these services are from vendor proposals for comparable municipal utilities. These distribution O & M costs were then compared to those of existing Iowa municipal utilities on a per customer and a per kWh basis to test for reasonableness of the resulting estimates. See the municipal utility data in Schedule 19, IAMU Unbundling Data where the Total Distribution dollars include both distribution O & M and Customer Accounting, Administrative and General Costs. Through time, these costs are estimated to increase at an annual rate of 2 percent plus the growth rate minus 1 percent, with the latter adjustment reflecting incremental costs of expanding from an existing system. Customer Accounting, Administrative and General Costs are also presented in Schedule 5. These estimates were developed on the same basis as were the distribution O & M costs. As noted above, these are compared to data from existing municipal utilities for tests of reasonableness. Through time, these costs are estimated to increase at an annual rate of 2 percent plus the growth rate minus I percent. Buyout Amortization Costs are included in Schedule 3, Capital Account Replacement (page 1) or Original (page 3) Cost Depreciated Assets and Liabilities, Column Amortization of Buyout. Following the depreciation life of distribution utility property, the amount of the Buyout, plus 10 percent for financing costs and contingencies, was amortized over a 33 1/3 year period at a straight-line rate of 3 percent per year. Distribution System Depreciation Costs are included in Schedule 3, Capital Account Replacement (page 1) or Original (page 3) Cost Depreciated Assets and Liabilities, Column Depreciation of Asset. These depreciable assets include both the reintegration costs and the continuing capital improvements. Following the depreciation life of distribution utility property, the amount of the Investment Assets was amortized over a 33 1/3 year period at a straight-line rate of 3 percent per year. Buyout Market-Rate Interest Costs are included in Schedule 3 Capital Account Replacement (page 2) or Original (page 4) Cost Depreciated Assets and Liabilities, Column Buyout Interest Payment. The yearly interest is assumed to be paid on the average principal balances of the prior year-end and the current year-end values of the balances. The Remaining Balance and constant Principal Payments each year are included in Schedule 3. Because interest payments on municipalization buyouts are assumed to have non-tax-preference status, the interest rate is assumed to be at a market interest rate, from Schedule 1, of 7.5 % over the life of the financing. Re-integration, Continuing Capital Improvement and Working Capital Tax- Preference Interest Costs are also included in Schedule 3, at pages 2 and 4, in Column Investment Account Interest Payment. The yearly interest is assumed to be paid on the average principal balance of the prior year-end and the current year-end values of the City of Iowa City Municipalization Study Page 14 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 FILED balances. The Remaining Balance and constant Principal Payments each year are included in Schedule 3. Because interest payments on municipalization inv~algt~, continuing capital improvements are assumed to have tax preference status, the interest rate is assumed to be at a tax preference interest rate, from Schedules 1 and 2, over the life of the financing. IO¥'V~ Replacement Delivery Property Tax Costs are included in Schedules 1 and 2 and are included in the overall costs of operation of a municipal electric utility. The tax rate per kWh of delivered energy is included in Schedule 21. With recent Iowa legislation, these Replacement Property Taxes replace previous property taxes and are collected based on generation, transmission and local distribution system factors. The generation and transmission costs, where relevant, are included in the delivered purchased power costs in this study. For the local distribution system, the tax rate per kWh from Schedule 21 is specific to the existing MEC service territow. In acquiring an MEC service territory, the City would be responsible for recovering these taxes in the same amount from its customers. The taxes would, of course, be used to replace the utility property taxes that MEC had previously paid to the City and county and other relevant recipients of those taxes. These taxes will grow through time as City customer electric usage increases. Further, although not included here, the City municipal utility could choose to make even larger contributions in lieu of taxes to support the City. Regulatory Costs of Municipalization are also included in Schedules 1 and 2. These are estimates of the City's share of the regulatory costs of pursuing municipalization before the Iowa Utilities Board and potentially through the courts. These costs assume that there would be some sharing of these costs for the first municipalization regulatory proceeding among the expected beneficiaries of these proceedings and that subsequent proceedings would have lower expected costs. Operations Start-up Costs are included in Schedules 1 and 2. These are estimates of the one-time costs of start-up for the municipal utility, presuming that the City initially decides to outsource power supply, transmission and distribution system functions. Power Supply Start-up Costs Including Metering are included in Schedules 1 and 2. These are estimates, based on existing municipal utility power pool practices, of the one- time costs of commencing power supply delivery to the City delivery point. These costs include all relevant metering, real-time information systems, power supply negotiations and contract preparations for firm service at the delivery point. MEC Retail Revenues Using Local Electric Usage and Rates Paid MEC Retail Revenues Using Available Information on Local Electric Usage and Rates Paid are developed in Schedule 9, Estimated MEC Annual City Revenue. The estimated usage data by customer class are as discussed above and as included in Schedule 6. The MEC rates differ by rate by East, North or South system and the City data are reflective of its current rate zone. Cityoflowa City Municipalization Study Page 15 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 FIL r The existing retail rates are from the most recent published information from MEC as presented in Schedule 22. For the LGS or Large General Service Class, a~'~it~. rates are not particularly helpful for City purposes unless the City has a very s~gmficant amount of large industrial electric usage. Therefore, the relevant rates for this(~[¥ ..... C~ty purposes were generally developed from actual bdhng ~nformat~on f~i~la~. local electric users or from actual billing information from comparable electric userg based on the same MEC zone tariff rates. As noted, the MEC rates differ for any given customer class depending on location on the East, North or South MEC System rates of the customer class. MEC is not expected to increase its rates through 2005, under agreement from its last electric rate case. After that, overall MEC rates are expected to increase 2 percent per year over the life of the study period. While MEC has publicly expressed a desire not to raise electric rates for a while, it is under no requirement that it refrain from such increases. Indeed, it recently requested automatic increases for its emissions control expenditures. Since this study is for 25 years, the 2 percent per year assumption is reasonable given the MEC construction activities and the volatility of the energy and transmission markets. For purposes of this study, the rates among the MEC East, North and South Systems are assumed to be equalized among rate zones over a 4 year period through changes in rates among Systems after 2005 to increase or decrease rates to realize such equalization. As noted, after 2005, overall MEC rates are assumed to increase at the rate of 2 percent per year through the end of the study period. Since the Iowa Utilities Board has stated its intention to remove existing rate differentials among rate zones within Iowa utilities, these assumptions are consistent with current expectations of rate changes both for rate equalization and for longer term rate increase adjustments. City Annual Savings The City Annual Savings as the Annual Differences Between Municipal Utility Operating Expenses and Incumbent Utility Retail Revenues are included in Schedules 1 and 2. That is, estimated total costs of providing City municipal electric service are compared to the total costs of electric service from MEC for the 25 years of the study. Obviously, in the initial year of the study, there are the one-time costs of commencement of municipal electric utility service. Net Present Value of 25-Year Annual Savings Discounted to the Present Using an After-Tax Long-Term Discount Rate The Net Present Value of 25-Year Savings of Annual Savings Discounted to the Present Using an After-Tax Long-Term Discount Rate for the City is presented in Schedules 1 and 2 for Replacement Cost Depreciated and Original Cost Depreciated valuations, respectively. These Net Present Value estimates start with the yearly, over twenty-five years, net savings or higher costs from the municipal system versus City of Iowa City Municipalization Study Page 16 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 continuing on the MEC system. Each of these yearly net savings or higher co~i~_ discounted back to the present using a discount rate that is the estimated afier-tatxt;~/~P of money for the municipal system taken as a whole. That discount rate is 4.5 percer~,t _ UITy as included in Schedules 1 and 2. IOWA If this estimated Net Present Value over 25 years is positive this means that, compared to the MEC system and after paying for all municipal utility costs for electric service delivered to customers, there are an equivalent of one-time dollars available in the amount of the Net Present Value. Those savings could be used for purposes of lowering longer term electric rates to customers or for other City purposes such as payments in lieu of taxes. If the estimated Net Present Value is negative, this means that, compared to MEC service, the City municipal utility would either require rates higher than those of MEC or would need to support the difference from other non- utility sources. Index of Study Schedules and Attachments Schedule-l: Pages 1-3 provide summary study results for acquisition at Replacement Cost Depreciated. Schedule-2: Pages 1-3 provide summary study results for acquisition at Original Cost Depreciated. Schedule-3: Pages 1-4 provide Capital Accounts for Replacement Cost Depreciated and Original Cost Depreciated Assets and Liabilities. Schedule-4: Pages 1-3 provide summary annual wholesale Purchased Power Costs. Schedule-5: Page 1 of 1 includes Projected O&M Expenses. Schedule-6: Page 1 of 1 includes estimated Customer kWh and kW sales data in total and by customer class for the service area of the City. Schedule-7: Includes estimates of kW and kWh for Major Accounts that are individually determined from actual bills or from estimates for major customers in the City. Schedule-8: Page 1 of 1 of Load Research includes estimated kWh per customer and kW Coincident Peak per customer for each rate class based on recent ntilky load research data filed by MEC with the Iowa Utilities Board. Residential and General Service customer class load research data are generally used in the analysis while Large General Service and Industrial customer class data are used where individual customer data are not otherwise determined. Schedule-9: Page 1 of 1 is an estimate of aggregate Estimated Annual City Revenue paid by consumers of the City to the incumbent utility, based on current utility rate zone/system prices. City of Iowa City Municipalization Study Page 17 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 Schedule-lO: Page 1 of 1 is an estimate of Street Lights replacement costs by type~g!d total for community street lights. Schedule-11: Page 1 of 1 is an Investment Summary of the estimated costs of acquirirl~m, -- '-',ir' the distribution system. Schedule-12: Page 1 of 1 is a Distribution System Mapping summary of engineering' field data for the lengths of existing distribution circuits by vintage and type of construction. Schedule-13: Page 1 of 1 is a summary of 2002 Handy-Whitman Electric Construction Indices for investments in various age vintages of distribution systems. Schedule-14: Page 1 of 1 includes replacement cost estimates for Meters, Services and Transformers for the City. Schedule-15: Page 1 of 1 is an engineering estimate of Projected Reintegration Costs to reintegrate the incumbent utility distribution system upon creation of a municipal electric utility. Schedule-16: Page 1 of 1 is an engineering estimate of the Valuation of Substations, if any, to be acquired. Schedule-17: Page 1 of 1 is an engineering estimate of the Valuation of Transmission and Sub-transmission, if any, to be acquired that principally provide service to City electric consumers. Schedule-18: Page 1 of I is an estimate of the incumbent utility's Stranded Generation costs, if any, that are applicable to the CRy municipal electric ntilky. Schedule-19: Page 1 of 1 includes summary data collected by the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities from twenty-eight existing Iowa municipal electric utilities. Data from six outlier utilities, three high and three low, were removed from the data for consistency purposes. These data, used for benchmarking, include population, kW, kWh, number of customers and revenue by rate class, and expenses for distribution O&M, less depreciation, and administrative and general. Schedule-20: Pages 1-3 are a summary of electric statistics from the 2002 U.S. Energy Information Administration for all one hundred thirty seven existing Iowa municipal electric utilities. These data include kWh data by class and per customer and are stratified by municipal population to provide repre- sentative statistics for cities with size similar to the study cities. Schedule-21: Page 1 of I is a summary of Electric Franchise and CRy-Specific Information regarding an electric franchise, other existing cry utilities, potential neighboring electric utility candidates for outsourcing distribu- tion system operations, population, delivery voltage level, growth rate, incumbent utility rate zone, wholesale power prices and Replacement Delivery Tax rates. CityofIowa City Municipalization Study Page 18 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 Schedule-22: Page 1 of 1 is a summary of the incumbent electric utility's current electric rates by customer class and by utility rate zone/system and on a combined basis across rate zones/systems for an incumbent utility. Attachment: Page 1 of 1 of this Attachment is the Prospective Municipal Electric Service Area with the City streets that are within the distribution system boundaries as used in the study. City of Iowa City Municipalization Study Page 19 By: Latham & Associates, Inc. 9/15/03 Replacement Cost Depreciated Revenue Comparison Net Present Value City: Iowa City Pop. Grp, 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule ol Pro Forma Revenue Requirement and Estimated City Savings 1 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 Operating Expenses: 3 Interest on Buyout $ Sch. 3 $ 859,260 $ 824,189 $ 789,117 $ 754,045 $ 718,973 683,901 $ 648,829 $ 613,757 4 Inte£cst on Investment $ Sch. 3 $ 80,593 g 142,509 $ 164,815 $ 186,667 $ 208,066 229,012 $ 249,506 $ 269,549 5 PurchasedPowet-Sch. 4 $ 32,672,686 $ 34,325,697 $ 36,062,347 $ 37,886,866 $ 39,803,701 41,817,523 $ 43,933,240 $ 46,156,007 6 Dislx~ution O&M (Gr+I%/¥r.) Sch. 5 $ 7,744,000 $ 8,053,760 $ 8~375,910 $ 8,710,947 $ 9,05%385 9,421,760 $ 9,798,630 $ 10,190,576 7 Cust Acer, Adm~n & Gen. (Gt+I%/Yt.) Sch. 5 $ 3,035,000 $ 3,156,400 $ 3,282,656 $ 3,413,962 $ 3,550,521 3,692,542 $ 3,840,243 $ 3,993,853 8 Amortization on Buyout-3%/Yr.- Sch. 3 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 350,719 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 9 Invest./Dept.-3%/¥r*Invest. Sch. 3 $ 16,876 $ 27,857 $ 38,838 $ 49,819 $ 60,801 71,782 $ 82,763 $ 93,744 10 RephcementDellvetyPtopertyT~xes $ 2,165,141 $ 2,230,528 $ 2,297,890 $ 2,367,287 $ 2,438,779 2,512,430 $ 2,588,305 $ 2,666,472 11 Reguhtoty Costs $ 100,000 12 Operations Start up Costs $ 40,000 14 Total Opexatlng Expenses $ 49,800,428 $ 49,111,658 $ 81~562~92 $ 53~720~511 $ 56,190,943 $ 58,']79,667 $ 61,492,238 $ 64~34,676 2O 22 Interest %/yr--4nvestment-Tax Preference 4.5% 23 Yeats Buyout Financed 25 24 NPV Discount Rate % 4.5% ~L~ .-< Schedule-1 Page 1 of 3 09112/2003 9:09 AM Replacement Cost Depreciated Revenue Comparison City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Pro Fonna Revenue Requirement and Estimated City Savings ITEM Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. 20perathag Expenses: 3 Intetest onBuyout$ Sch. 3 $ 578,686 $ 543,614 $ 508,542 $ 473.470 $ 438,398 $ 403,326 $ 368,254 $ 333,183 4 Interest on Investment $ Sch. 3 $ 289.142 $ 308,285 $ 326,980 $ 345,228 $ 363,029 $ 380,385 $ 397,296 $ 413,764 5 Putchased Powet Sch. 4 $ 48,491,2A0 $ 50,944,632 $ 53,522,160 $ 56,230,105 $ 59,075,067 $ 62,063,978 $ 65,204,122 $ 68,503,152 6 DistributlonO&M (Gr+I%/Y£.) Sch. 5 $ 10,598,199 $ 11,022~127 $ 11,463,012 $ 11,921,532 $ 12~98,394 $ 12,894,329 $ 13,410,102 $ 13,946,507 7 Cust. Acer, Admin & Gen. (Grl 1%lYf.) ~ Sch. 5 $ 4,153,607 $ 4,319,751 $ 4,492,541 $ 4,672,243 $ 4,859,133 $ 5,053,498 $ 5,255,638 $ 5,465,864 8 Amo~dzation on Buyout-3%/Yt. Sch. 3 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 9 Invest./Dept. 3%/Yt*Invest.-Sch. 3 $ 104,725 $ 115,706 $ 126,687 $ 137,668 $ 148,649 $ 159,630 $ 170,612 $ 181,593 10 Replacement Dellve~ properly Taxes $ 2,746,999 $ ~829,959 $ 2,915,423 $ 3,003,469 $ 3,094,174 $ 3,187,618 $ 3,283,884 $ 3,3~3,057 11 Regulatory Costs 12 Operations Start up Costs 14 Total OperatingExpeaases $ 67~313r316 $ 70~434,792 $ 73~706~064 $ 77,134,434 $ 80,727,~62 $ 84,493~484 $ 88,440,627 $ 92,577,837 16 MEG Est. Rev.-%Q &2%Pr. Incr. in2Yr-Seh. 10 $ ?0,707,829 $ 74,285,645 $ 78,044,499 $ 81~993,350 $ 86~142~424 $ 90,301,231 $ 95,080,893 $ 99,591,671 18 City Estimated Savings %/Yr 4.8% 5.2% 8.6% 8.9% 6.3% 6.6% 7.0% 7.3% 19 Net Present Value %~ 28 Yrs Est. Savings 2O 21 Interest %lYf- Buyout--Taxable 7.5% 22 Interest %/Yr lnvesmaent TM Preference 4-5% 23 years Buyout Financed 25 24 NPV Discount Kate % 4.5% C_.) Schedule -1 Page 2 of 3 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Replacement Cost Depreciated Revenue Comparison City: Iowa City Pop, Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Pro Forma Revenue Requirement and Estimated City Savings ITEM Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr, I 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 Interest on Buyout $ Sch. 3 298,111 $ 263,039 227,967 $ 192,895 $ 157,823 $ 122,751 $ 87,680 52,608 $ 17,536 4 Intetestonlnvestment$ Sch. 3 429,788 $ 445,372 460,514 $ 475,218 $ 489,483 $ 503,310 $ 516,702 529,659 $ 542,181 5 PutchasedPovcet Sch. 4 71,969,107 $ 75,610,433 79,436,003 $ 83,455,142 $ 87,677,642 $ 92,113,794 $ 96,774,409 101,670,844 $ 106,815,032 6 Distribution O&M (Gt+l%/Y~.) - Sch. 5 14,504,367 $ 15,084,541 15,687,923 $ 16,315,440 $ 16,968,058 $ 17,646,780 $ 18,352,651 19,086,757 $ 19,850,227 7 CUSL Acc~ Admln & Gen. (G£+1%/Yr.) - Sch. 5 5,684,498 $ 5,911,878 6,148,353 $ 6,394,287 $ 6,650,059 $ 6,916,061 $ 7,192,704 7,480,412 $ 7,779,628 8 Amostization on Buyout-3%/Y~. Sch. 3 350,719 $ 350,719 350,719 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 350,719 $ 350,719 9 Invest/Depc-3%/Yr*Invest. - Sch. 3 192,574 $ 203,555 214,536 $ 225,517 $ 236,498 $ 247,479 $ 258,460 269,442 $ ~0,423 10 RephcementDellvetyPtopettyTaxes 3,485,226 $ 3,590,480 3,698,912 $ 3,810,619 $ 3,925,700 $ 4,044,256 $ 4,166,393 4,292,218 $ 4,421,843 11 Regulatory Costs 14 Total Operathag Expenses $ 96,914~389 $ 101~460,016 $ 106324,928 $ 111~219,837 $ 116,488,981 $ 121,94.~,181 $ 127,699,717 $ 133,732,687 $ 24 NPV Discount Rate % 0.045 C) Schedule -1 Page 3 of 3 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Original Cost Depreciated Revenue Compadson Net Present Value City: Iowa City Pop, Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Pro Forma Revenue Requirement and Estimated City Savings ITEM Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Schedule - 2 Page 1 of 3 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Original Cost Depreciated Revenue Compadson City: Iowa C~ty Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC.East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Pro Forma Revenue Requirement and Estimated City Savings ITEM Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. 2 Operating Expenses: 3 Interest on Buyout $ - Sch. 3 $ 458,714 $ 430,913 403,112 $ 375,311 $ 347,511 $ 319,710 $ 291,909 $ 264,108 4 Interest on Investment $ - $ch. 3 $ 279,326 $ 297,379 314,983 $ 332,140 $ 348,851 $ 365,116 $ 380,936 $ 396,313 5 Purchased Power - Sch. 4 $ 48,491,240 $ 50,944,632 53,52~,160 $ 56,230,105 $ 59,075,067 $ 62,063,978 $ 65,204,122 $ 68,503,152 6 Distribution O&~l (Gt+l%/Yt.) - Sch. 5 $ 10,598,199 $ 11,022,127 11,463,012 $ 11,921,532 $ 12,398,394 $ 12,894,329 $ 13,410,102 $ 13,946,507 7 Cust Acet, Admia & Gen. (Gr+l%/Yt.) Sch. 5 $ 4,153,607 $ 4.319,751 4,492,541 $ 4,672,243 $ 4,859,133 $ 5,053,498 $ 5~55,638 $ 5,465,864 8 Amm~dzation on Buyout-3%/Yt. Sch. 3 $ 278,008 $ 278,008 278,008 $ 278,008 $ 278,008 $ 278,008 $ 278,008 $ 278,008 9 Invest/Dept. 3%/Y~*Invest. - Sch. 3 $ 104,725 $ 115,706 126,687 $ 137,668 $ 148,649 $ 159,630 $ 170,612 $ 181,593 10 RepLacement Delivery Ptoper~ T~xes $ 2,746,999 $ 2,829,959 2,915,423 $ 3,003,469 $ 3,094,174 $ 3,187,618 $ 3,283,884 $ 3,383,057 11 Raguhtoty Costs 14 Total Operating Expenses $ 67,110,815 $ 70,238,475 $ 73.51~,927 $ 76,950,478 $ 80,~49,7~6 $ 84~21,888 $ 88,273,212 $ 92,418,602 18 City Estimated Savings %/Yr 8.1% 5.4% 5.8% 6.2% 6.5% 6.8% 7.2% 7.5% 19 Net Preseat Value %, 25 Yrs Est. Savings 21 In*crest %/Yr Buyout--T~y, able 7.5% ~ O 23 Ye~rs Buyout Financed 25 ~ ~ 24 NPV Discount Rate % 4.5% ~ ~ Schedule - 2 Page 2 of 3 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Original Cost Depreciated Revenue Comparison City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Pro Forma Revenue Requirement and Estimated City Savings ITEM Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr, Yr. Yr. Yr. Yr. 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 Operating Expenses: 3 lnterestonBuyout$ Sch. 3 $ 236,307 $ 208,506 $ 180,705 $ 152,905 $ 125,104 $ 97,303 $ 69,502 $ 41,701 S 13,900 4 lntetest on Investments Sch. 3 $ 411,247 $ 425,740 $ 439,792 $ 453,405 $ 466,579 $ 480,322 $ 491,617 $ 503,483 $ 514,915 5 Purchased Power- Sch. 4 $ 71,969,107 $ 75,610,433 $ 79,436,003 $ 83,455,142 $ 87,677,642 $ 92,113,794 $ 96,774,409 $ 101,670,844 $ 106,815,032 6 DisttibutlonO&M(Gt+l°/o/Yr.) Sch. 5 $ 14,504,367 $ 15,084,541 $ 15,687,923 $ 16,315,440 $ 16,968,058 $ 17,646,780 $ 18,352,651 $ 19,086,757 $ 19,850,227 7 Cust. Acct, Admin & Gen. (Gt+l%/Yt.) Sch. 5 $ 5,684,498 $ 5,911,878 $ 6,148,353 $ 6,394,287 $ 6,650,059 $ 6,916,061 $ 7,192,704 $ 7,480,412 $ 7,779,628 8 AmortlzafiononBuyout-3%/Yr. Sch. 3 $ 278,008 $ 278,008 $ 278,008 $ 278,008 $ 278,008 $ 278,008 $ 278,008 $ 278,008 $ 278,008 9 lnvest./Depr. 3%/Yt*Invest. Sch. 3 $ 192,574 $ 203,555 $ 214,536 $ 225,517 $ 236,498 $ 247,479 $ 258,460 $ 2fi9,442 $ 280,423 10 Replacement Delivery Properly Taxes $ 3,485,226 $ 3,590,480 $ 3,698,912 $ 3,810,619 $ 3,925,700 $ 4,044,256 $ 4,166,393 $ 4,292~218 $ 4,421,843 I1 Reguhtoty Costs 12 Operations Start up Costs 14 Total Operating Expenses $ 96~761~334 $ 101,313~141 $ 106,054~34 $ 111~08S,323 $ 116~327,648 $ 121,824,004 $ 127,~83,744 $ 133,622,865 $ 139,953,977 Schedule - 2 Page 3 of 3 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Capital Account Replacement Cost Depreciated Assets and Liabilities City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year '1: 2004 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities by Year Assets Investment Deprec. Cum. Inv. Less Investment Amort. Cum. Inv. Less Cash Total Assets Asset Deprec. Deprec. Buyout Buyout AmoK. Amort. Work. Cap. Asses 1 $ 562,537 $ 16,876 $ 16,876 $ 5~5,661 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 350,719 $ 11,339,900 $ 2,148,341 $ 14,033,901 2 $ 928,574 $ 27,857 $ 44,733 $ 883,8~0 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 701,437 $ 10,969,181 $ 2,191,306 $ 14,064,329 3 $ 1,294,611 $ 38,838 $ 83,572 $ 1,211,039 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 1,062,156 $ 10,638,463 $ 2,235,134 $ 14,064,636 4 $ 1,660,648 $ 49,819 $ 133,391 $ 1,527,256 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 1,~O2,874 $ 10,287,744 $ 2,279,837 $ 14,094,837 5 $ 2,026,684 $ 60,801 $ 194,192 $ 1,832,493 $ 11,690,818 $ 350,719 $ 1,753,593 $ 9,937,025 $ 2,325,433 $ 14,094,952 6 $ 2,392,721 $ 71,782 $ 265,973 $ 2,126,7~8 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 2,104,311 $ 9,586,307 $ 2,371,942 $ 14,064,997 7 $ 2,758,758 $ 82,763 $ 348,736 $ 2,410,022 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 2,~5,030 $ 9,235,588 $ 2,419,381 $ 14,064,992 8 $ 3,124,795 $ 93,744 $ 442,,~80 $ 2,682,315 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 2,805,748 $ 8,884,870 $ 2,467,768 $ 14,034,954 9 $ 3,490,832 $ 104,725 $ 547,205 $ 2,943,627 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 3,156,467 $ 8,534,151 $ 2,517,I24 $ 13,994,902 10 $ 3,656,869 $ 115,706 $ 662,911 $ 3,193,958 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 3,507,185 $ 8,183,433 $ 2,667,~06 $ 13,944,857 11 $ 4,222,g06 $ 126,687 $ 789,,5~6 $ 3,433,308 $ 11,6~0,618 $ 350,719 $ 3,857,904 $ 7,832,714 $ 2,618,816 $ 13,884,838 12 $ 4,588,943 $ 137,668 $ 927,266 $ 3,661,676 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 4,208,623 $ 7,~81,996 $ 2,671,192 $ 13,814,864 13 $ 4,~-:)4,960 $ lZ~8,649 $ 1,075,916 $ 3,879,064 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 4,559,341 $ 7,131,277 $ 2,724,616 $ 13,734,957 14 $ 5,321,016 $ 159,630 $ 1,235,546 $ 4,0~5,470 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 4,910,060 $ 6,780,559 $ 2,779,106 $ 13,645,137 15 $ 5,687,053 $ 170,612 $ 1,406,158 $ 4,280,896 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 5,260,778 $ 6,429,840 $ 2,834,6~0 $ 13,545,426 16 $ 6,063,C~0 $ 181,6~3 $ 1,587,751 $ 4,465,3~0 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 5,611,z~97 $ 6,079,121 $ 2,891,384 $ 13,435,845 17 $ 6,419,127 $ 192,574 $ 1,780,324 $ 4,638,803 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 5,962,215 $ 5,728,403 $ 2,9~9,212 $ 13,316,418 18 $ 6,785,164 $ 203,555 $ 1,~83,879 $ 4,801,285 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 6,312,934 $ 5,377,684 $ 3,006,19~ $ 13,187,165 19 $ 7,151,201 $ 214,536 $ 2,198,415 $ 4,952,786 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 6,663,652 $ 5,026,966 $ 3,068,360 $ 13,048,111 ~(~.) ~.~ 20 $ 7,517,238 $ 225,517 $ 2,423,932 $ 5,093,305 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 7,014,371 $ 4,676,247 $ 3,129,727 $ 12,8.99,280 ~>.~__ 21 $ 7,883,275 $ 236,,~8 $ 2,660,431 $ 5,222,844 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 7,365,069 $ 4,325,529 $ 3,192,322 $ 12,7~0,694 22 $ 8,249,312 $ 247,479 $ 2,907,910 $ 5,341,402 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 7,715,806 $ 3,974,810 $ 3,256,168 $ 12,572,380 23 $ 8,615,3~8 $ 258,460 $ 3,166,370 $ 5,4,q8,978 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 8,O66,527 $ 3,624,092 $ 3,321,291 $ 12,394,361 24 $ 8,961,385 $ 269,442 $ 3,435,812 $ 5,545,573 $ 11,690,618 $ 350,719 $ 8,417,245 $ 3,273,373 $ 3,387,717 $ 12,206,664 25 $ 9,347,422 $ 280,423 $ 3,716,235 $ 5,631,188 $ 11,6~0,618 $ 350,719 $ 8,767,964 $ 2,922,655 $ 3,455,472 $ 12,009,314 cz) Schedule 3 Page 1 of 4 09/12/20039:09 AM Capital Account Replacement Cost Depreciated Assets and Liabilities City: Iowa Cit:/ Pop. Grp. 4 Utlllt,/: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities by Year Liabilities Yea Investment Worldng Principal Cum Prin¢. Remaining Interest Buyout Principal Cum Prin~. Remaining interest Cum Other Otfler Cash Total Account Capital Pa~ent Pa~m~ent Balance Payment Accoufft Pa~ment Pavement Balance Pavement Cash Re({, Interest Liabilities 1 $ 562,537 $ 2,148,341 $ 108,435 $ 106.435 $ 2,602,443 $ 71,212 $ 11,690.618 $ 467,625 $ 467,625 $ 11,222,993 $ 859,260 $ 208,465 $ 9,361 $ 14,033,901 2 $ 928,574 $ 2,191,308 $ 124,795 $ 255.230 $ 2,886,651 $ 125,505 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 935,249 $ 10,755,569 $ 824,189 $ 422,309 $ 19.004 $ 14,064,329 3 $ 1,294,611 $ 2,235,134 $ 141,190 $ 374,420 $ 3,155,524 $ 13~,944 $ 11,690.618 $ 467,625 $ 1,402,874 $ 10,287,744 $ 789,117 $ 641,567 $ 28,871 $ 14,084,656 4 $ 1,660,648 $ 2,279,857 $ 157,619 $ 532,040 $ 5,408,445 $ 147,685 $ 11,6~0,618 $ 467,625 $ 1,870,499 $ 9,820,119 $ 754,045 $ 866,273 $ 58,982 $ 14,094,857 5 $ 2,026,684 $ 2,325,433 $ 174,085 $ 706,124 $ 5,645,994 $ 158,725 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 2,538,124 $ 9,352,495 $ 718,973 $ 1,696,464 $ 49,$41 $ 14,094,952 6 $ 2,392,721 $ 2,571,942 $ 190,587 $ 896,711 $ 3,867,953 $ 169,064 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 2,605.748 $ 8,884,870 $ 685,901 $ 1,352,175 $ 59,94g $ 14,084,997 7 $ 2,758,758 $ 2,419,381 $ 207,126 $ 1,105,836 $ 4,074,303 $ 176,701 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 3,273,373 $ 8,417,245 $ 648,829 $ 1,573,444 $ 70,8(35 $ 14.064,992 6 $ 3,124,795 $ 2,467,768 $ 225,705 $ 1,327,559 $ 4,265,025 $ 187,635 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 3,740,998 $ 7,949.620 $ 613,757 $ 1,820,309 $ 81,614 $ 14,034.954 6 $ 3,490,852 $ 2,517,124 $ 240,316 $ 1,557,657 $ 4,440.099 $ 195,865 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 4,208,623 $ 7,481,996 $ 578.686 $ 2,072,806 $ 63,276 $ 13.9~4,902 10 $ 3,856,869 $ 2.567,466 $ 256,973 $ 1,824,831 $ 4,599.505 $ 203,391 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 4,676,247 $ 7,014,571 $ 543,614 $ 2,330,981 $ 104,894 $ 13,944,857 11 $ 4,222,906 $ 2,616,616 $ 275,669 $ 2,09g,499 $ 4,743,222 $ 210,211 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 5,143,672 $ 6,546,746 $ 508,542 $ 2,594,669 $ 116,769 $ 13,884,638 12 $ 4,586,943 $ 2,671,192 $ 290,405 $ 2,38g,905 $ 4,871.230 $ 216,325 $ 1t,690,616 $ 467,625 $ 5,611,497 $ 6,079,12t $ 473,470 $ 2,864,g13 $ t28,903 $ 13,814,564 13 $ 4,954,960 $ 2,724,616 $ 307,184 $ 2,696,089 $ 4,963,507 $ 221,732 $ 11,690.618 $ 467,625 $ 6,079,121 $ 5,611,497 $ 438.396 $ 3,139,95S $ 141.298 $ 15,754,957 14 $ 5,921,016 $ 2,779,108 $ 324,005 $ 3,020,094 $ 5,080,031 $ 226,430 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 6,546,746 $ 5,143,672 $ 403,326 $ 3,421,234 $ 153.956 $ 13,645,137 15 $ 5,687,053 $ 2,834,690 $ 340,670 $ 3,360,~63 $ 5,160.780 $ 260,41d $ 11,690,61d $ 467,625 $ 7,014,871 $ 4,676,247 $ 366,254 $ 3,708,398 $ 166,676 $ 13,545,426 16 $ 6,053,090 $ 2,891,384 $ 357,779 $ 3,718,742 $ 5,225,762 $ 233.697 $ 11.690,618 $ 467,625 $ 7,461,~96 $ 4,208,623 $ 333,183 $ 4,001,491 $ t60,667 $ 13,435,845 17 $ 6,419,127 $ 2,949,212 $ 574,734 $ 4,095,476 $ 5,274,865 $ 236.263 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 7,949,620 $ 5,740,998 $ 298,111 $ 4,300.557 $ 193,525 $ 15,516,418 15 $ 6,785,164 $ 3,006,166 $ 391,734 $ 4,485.210 $ 5,308,150 $ 238,118 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 8,417.245 $ 3.273,373 $ 263,039 $ 4,605,642 $ 207,254 $ 13,187,165 16 $ 7,151,201 $ 3,068,560 $ 408,782 $ 4,893,995 $ 5,325,568 $ 259,259 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 8,884,870 $ 2,805,748 $ 227,~67 $ 4,916,795 $ 221,256 $ 13,048,111 20 $ 7,517,238 $ 3,129,727 $ 425,879 $ 5,519,871 $ 5,327,094 $ 259,685 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 9,352,495 $ 2,538,124 $ 192,895 $ 5,234,063 $ 255.533 $ 12,899,280 21 $ 7,883,275 $ 3,192,522 $ 443,024 $ 5,762,695 $ 5,512,701 $ 239,395 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 9,820,119 $ 1,870,499 $ 157,823 $ 5,557,494 $ 250,087 $ 12,740,694 22 $ 8,249,512 $ 3,256,168 $ 460,219 $ 6,223,114 $ 5,282,365 $ 238,389 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 10,287,744 $ 1,402,574 $ 122,751 $ 5,887,140 $ 264,921 $ 12,572,380 25 $ 8,615,548 $ 3,521,291 $ 477,466 $ 6,700,580 $ 5,256.060 $ 236,665 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,62g $ 10,755,369 $ 935,249 $ 67,680 $ 6,223,052 $ 280,057 $ 12,594,361 24 $ 8,981,585 $ 5,587,717 $ 4~1,764 $ 7,195,344 $ 5,175.759 $ 234,221 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 11.222,993 $ 467,625 $ 52,608 $ 6,565,280 $ 255,45g $ 12,206,664 25 $ 9,347,422 $ 5,455,472 $ 512,116 $ 7,707,460 $ 5,095,434 $ 251,057 $ 11,690,618 $ 467,625 $ 11,690,618 $ $ 17,536 $ 6,913,880 $ 311,125 $ 12,009,514 Schedule 3 Page 2 of 4 09/12/20039:09 AM Capital Account Odginal Cost Depreciated Assets and Liabilities City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities by Year Assets Investment Deprec. Cum. Inv. Less Investment Amort. Cum. Inv. Less Cash Total Assets Asset Deprec. Deprec. Buyout Buyout Amort. Amort. Work, Cap. Assets 1 $ 562,537 $ 16,876 $ 16,876 $ 545,661 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,008 $ 278,006 $ 8,988,938 $ 2,148,341 $ 11,682,9,~0 2 $ 928,574 $ 27,857 $ 44,733 $ 886,8z~0 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,0(~ $ 556,017 $ 8,710,930 $ 2,191,30~ $ 11,786,078 3 $ 1,294,611 $ 38,838 $ 83,572 $ 1,211,039 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,006 $ 834,025 $ 8,A32,922 $ 2,235,134 $ 11,879,0~5 4 $ 1,660,648 $ 49,819 $ 133,391 $ 1,527,256 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,00~ $ 1,112,034 $ 8,154,913 $ 2,279,837 $ 11,9~2,006 5 $ 2,026,664 $ 60,801 $ 194,192 $ 1,832,493 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,006 $ 1,390,042 $ 7,876,905 $ 2,325,433 $ 12,034,831 6 $ 2,392,721 $ 71,782 $ 265,973 $ 2,126,748 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,008 $ 1,668,050 $ 7,596,896 $ 2,371,942 $ 12,097,586 7 $ 2,758,758 $ 82,763 $ 348,736 $ 2,410,022 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,008 $ 1,946,059 $ 7,320,888 $ 2,419,381 $ 12,150,291 8 $ 3,124,795 $ 93,744 $ 442?,80 $ 2,682,315 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,008 $ 2,224,067 $ 7,042,880 $ 2,467,768 $ 12,192,963 9 $ 3,,~0,832 $ 104,725 $ 547,205 $ 2,9~3,627 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,008 $ 2,502,076 $ 6,764,871 $ 2,517,124 $ 12,225,62_2 10 $ 3,856,869 $ 115,706 $ 662,911 $ 3,193,958 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,(308 $ 2,780,(}64 $ 6,z~,6,863 $ 2,567,466 $ 12,2,:18,287 11 $ 4,222,906 $ 126,687 $ 78,9,6~8 $ 3,433,308 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,008 $ 3,~58,092 $ 6,2C8,854 $ 2,618,816 $ 12,260,978 12 $ 4,588,943 $ 137,668 $ 927,266 $ 3,661,676 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,0(36 $ 3,336,101 $ 5,930,846 $ 2,671,192 $ 12,263,714 13 $ 4,954,980 $ 148,649 $ 1,075,916 $ 3,879,064 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,006 $ 3,614,109 $ 5,652,838 $ 2,724,616 $ 12,256,517 14 $ 5,321,016 $ 159,630 $ 1,235,546 $ 4,065,470 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,006 $ 3,892,118 $ 5,374,829 $ 2,779,108 $ 12,239,408 15 $ 5,687,053 $ 170,612 $ 1,~06,158 $ 4,280,896 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,006 $ 4,170,126 $ 5,096,821 $ 2,834,690 $ 12,212,407 16 $ 6,053,090 $ 181,593 $ 1,587,751 $ 4,465,340 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,006 $ 4,4,48,134 $ 4,818,812 $ 2,891,384 $ 12,175,536 17 $ 6,419,127 $ 192,574 $ 1,780,324 $ 4,638,803 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,006 $ 4,726,1,~, $ 4,540,804 $ 2,9,49,212 $ 12,128,819 18 $ 6,785,164 $ 203,5E5 $ 1,963,879 $ 4,801,285 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,006 $ 5,004,151 $ 4,262,796 $ 3,008,196 $ 12,072,276 19 $ 7,151,201 $ 214,536 $ 2,19~,415 $ 4,952,786 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,0(~ $ 5,282,160 $ 3,984,787 $ 3,068,360 $ 12,005,933 20 $ 7,517,238 $ 225,517 $ 2,423,932 $ 5,(393,3~5 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,008 $ 5,560,168 $ 3,7O6,779 $ 3,129,727 $ 11,929,811 21 $ 7,883,275 $ 236,498 $ 2,660,431 $ 5,222,844 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,008 $ 5,838,176 $ 3,428,770 $ 3,192,322 $ 11,843,936 22 $ 8,2a9,312 $ 247,479 $ 2,907,910 $ 5,341,z102 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,008 $ 6,116,185 $ 3,150,762 $ 3,256,168 $ 11,748,332 23 $ 8,615,348 $ 258,460 $ 3,166,370 $ 5,448,978 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,008 $ 6,394,193 $ 2,872,753 $ 3,321,291 $ 11,643,023 24 $ 8,961,385 $ 269,442 $ 3,~35,812 $ 5,5~5,573 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,006 $ 6,672,202 $ 2,594,745 $ 3,387,717 $ 11,528,036 25 $ 9,347,422 $ 280,423 $ 3,716,235 $ 5,631,188 $ 9,266,947 $ 278,006 $ 6,S50,210 $ 2,316,737 $ 3,455,472 $ 11,~O3,396 Schedule 3 Page 3 of 4 09/12/20039:09 AM Capital Account Original Cost Depreciated Assets and Liabilities City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility; MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities by Year Liabilities Year inv==[,.~,,~ Woddng Principal Cum Print. Remaining Interest ISuyout Principal Cum Princ. Remaining Interest Cum Other Other Cash Total Account t~i~l Pa)nnent pa:/ment Balance Pa~mlent Account Pa)'ment Pa~mlent Balance Pavement Cash Rec~, interest Liabilities 1 $ 562,537 $ '2,148,341 $ 108,435 $ 108,435 $ 2,602,443 $ 71,212 $ 9,266,947 $ 370,678 $ 370,678 $ 8,896,269 $ 681,121 $ 184,228 $ 6,290 $ 11,682,640 2 $ 928,574 $ 2,191,308 $ 124,795 $ 263,200 $ 21868,651 $ 123,505 $ 9,266,947 $ 570,678 $ 741,356 $ 8,525,591 $ 653,320 $ 375,836 $ 16,823 $ 11,786,078 3 $ 1,294,611 $ 2,235,134 $ 141,190 $ 374,420 $ 3,155,324 $ 155,944 $ 9,266,947 $ 370,678 $ 1,t12,034 $ 8,154,915 $ 625,519 $ 568,857 $ 25,599 $ 11,879,095 4 $ 1,660,648 $ 2,279,667 $ 157,619 $ 532,040 $ 5,406,445 $ 147,685 $ 9,266,947 $ 370,678 $ 1,482,7tl $ 7,764,235 $ 597,718 $ 769,526 $ 34,620 $ 11,962,006 5 $ 2,026,684 $ 2,625,453 $ 1741085 $ 7061124 $ 3,645,994 $ 158,725 $ 9,266,947 $ 570,678 $ 1,853,386 $ 7,413,557 $ 566,917 $ 975,280 $ 431888 $ 12,034,831 6 $ 2,3~2,721 $ 2,371,942 $ 160,587 $ 896,711 $ 3,867,953 $ 169,064 $ 9,266,947 $ 670,678 $ 2,224,067 $ 7,042,880 $ 542,116 $ 1,186,754 $ 53,404 $ 12,097,586 7 $ 2,758,758 $ 2,419,~81 $ 207,126 $1,1051936 $ 4,074,305 $ 176,701 $ 9,266,947 $ 570,678 $ 2,594,745 $ 6,672,202 $ 514,316 $ 1,403,787 $ 63,170 $ 12,150,291 8 $ 5,124,795 $ 2,467,768 $ 223,703 $ 1,327,539 $ 4,265,025 $ 187,665 $ 9,266,947 $ 370,676 $ 2,965,423 $ 6,301,524 $ 486,515 $ 1,6261415 $ 73,189 $ 12,162,963 9 $ 3,490,832 $ 2,517,124 $ 240,318 $1,567,857 $ 4,440,099 $ 195,865 $ 9,266,647 $ 570,67it $ 6,536~101 $ 5,630,646 $ 458,714 $ 1,854,678 $ 83,460 $ 12,225,622 10 $ 5,856,869 $ 2,567,466 $ 256,973 $ 1,824,851 $ 4,596,505 $ 205,561 $ 9,266,947 $ $70,678 $ 3,706,779 $ 5,560,168 $ 460,915 $ 2,088,614 $ 93,988 $ 12,248,287 11 $ 4,222,906 $ 2,618,816 $ 275,669 $ 2,098,499 $ 4,745,222 $ 2101211 $ 9,266,947 $ 370,678 $ 41077,457 $ 5,189,490 $ 405,112 $ 2,328,265 $ 104,772 $ 12,260,978 12 $ 4,588,946 $ 2,671,192 $ 250,405 $ 2,368,905 $ 4,671,2~0 $ 216,325 $ 6,266,947 $ 570,679 $ 4,448,184 $ 4,818,812 $ 375,31t $ 2,575,672 $ 115,815 $ 12,263,714 15 $ 4,954,980 $ 2,724,616 $ 30711~4 $ 2,6~,066 $ 4,963,507 $ 221,732 $ 6,266,947 $ 570,678 $ 4,818,812 $ 4,448,134 $ 347,6tl $ 2,824,676 $ 127,119 $ 12,256,517 14 $ 5,$2t,016 $ 2,779,108 $ 324,005 $ 3,020,094 $ 5,080,031 $ 226,430 $ 9,266,947 $ 370,676 $ 5,189,490 $ 4,077,457 $ 319,710 $ 5,081,920 $ 138,686 $ 12,239,408 15 $ 5,687,053 $ 2,634,690 $ 340,870 $ 3,360,963 $ 5,160,780 $ 230,418 $ 9,266,947 $ 370,678 $ 5,560,168 $ 3,706,779 $ 291,909 $ 3,344,648 $ 150,518 $ 12,212,407 16 $ 6,055,090 $ 2,891,384 $ 357,779 $ 3,71it,742 $ 5,22517~2 $ 236,697 $ 9,266,947 $ 370,678 $ 5,930,846 $ 3,336,101 $ 264,108 $ 3,613,703 $ 162,617 $ 12,17515~6 17 $ 6,416,127 $ 2,649,212 $ 374,734 $ 4,093,476 $ 5,274,863 $ 236,263 $ 9,266,947 $ 370,678 $ 6,301,524 $ 2,965,423 $ 236,307 $ 5,888,532 $ 174,984 $ 12,128,819 18 $ 6,785,164 $ 6,008,196 $ 391,734 $ 4,485,210 $ 5,506,150 $ 238,1'i8 $ 9,265,947 $ 570,678 $ 6,672,202 $ 2,594,74~ $ 208,506 $ 4,169,381 $ 187,622 $ 12,072,276 19 $ 7,151,201 $ 3,068,360 $ 408,782 $ 4,695,993 $ 5,82S,568 $ 239,259 $ 9,266,947 $ 570,678 $ 7,042,880 $ 2,224,067 $ 180,705 $ 4,456,297 $ 200,533 $ 12,005,935 20 $ 7,517,238 $ 3,129,727 $ 425,879 $ 5,619,671 $ 5,527,064 $ 23.9,685 $ 6,266,947 $ 370,676 $ 7,416,557 $ 1,953,389 $ 152,905 $ 4,749,328 $ 213,720 $ 11,9291811 21 $ 7,it63,275 $ 3,192,322 $ 443,024 $ 5,762,895 $ 5,312,701 $ 239,3~5 $ 9,266,947 $ 370,678 $ 7,784,235 $ 1,482,711 $ 125,104 $ 5,048,525 $ 227,184 $ 11,843,956 22 $ 8,249,312 $ 3,256,168 $ 460,219 $ 6,223,114 $ 5,262,365 $ 238,686 $ 9,266,647 $ 370,678 $ 6,154,613 $ 1,112,034 $ 97,303 $ 5,355,935 $ 240,927 $ 11,748,362 23 $ 6,615,348 $ 3,$21,291 $ 477,466 $ 6,700,580 $ 5,236,060 $ 236,665 $ 9,266,947 $ 370,676 $ 8,525,591 $ 741,356 $ 69,502 $ 5,665,607 $ 254,952 $ 11,643,023 24 $ 8,981,385 $ 6,387,717 $ 494,764 $ 7,1~5,344 $ 5,1751759 $ 234,221 $ 9,266,947 $ 370,678 $ 6,896,269 $ 370,678 $ 41,70t $ 5,985,599 $ 269,262 $ 11,528,0~6 25 $ 9,347,422 $ 5,455,472 $ 512,116 $ 7,707,460 $ 5,095,434 $ 231,057 $ 9,266,947 $ 370,678 $ 9,266,947 $ $ 13,900 $ 6,507,962 $ 283,658 $ 11,403,396 C.ri Schedule 3 Page 4 of 4 09/12/20039:09 AM Purchased Power Projected Costs City: Iowa City Pop, Grp, 4 Utility: MEC-East Year t: 200 I Schedule of Purchased Power Costs item 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 0 Est. kWh Sales - Sch. 6 777,195,033 800,510,884 824,526,211 849,261,997 874,739,857 900,~82,053 928,011,514 955,851 Sales Growth %/yr. 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% kwh Losses 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% kwh Purchases 805,383,454 829,544,958 854,431,307 880,064,246 906,466,173 933,660,158 961,669,963 990,520,062 Summer Coincident Pk kW - Sch. 6 155,258 159,916 164,713 169,655 174,744 179,987 185,386 190,948 Winter Coincident Pk kW - Sch. 6 1 ~5,658 108,828 112,092 115,455 118,919 122,486 126,161 129,946 Summer Pk kW with Losses 160,889 165,716 170,687 175,8C8 181,062 186,515 192,110 197,873 Winter Pk kW with Losses 109,490 112,775 116,158 119,643 123,232 126,929 130,737 134,6E9 Annual Load Factor 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% Peak Mo. Bill. kW (97% Est. Pk) 156,062 160,744 165,567 t 70,534 175,650 180,919 186,347 191,937 Annual Bill. kW (97% Est. Dem) 1,388,956 1,430,625 1,473,543 1,517,750 1,563,282 1,610,181 1,658,486 1,706,241 Energy Chg.lnc1.Trans$/kVVh+2%/yr $ 0.0180 $ 0.0184 $ 0.0187 $ 0.0191 $ 0.0195 $ 0,0199 $ 0.02~3 $ 0,0207 Energy Cost $ $ 14,506,811 $ 15,240,855 $ 16,012,O43 $ 16,822,252 $ 17,673,458 $ 18,567,735 $ 19,507,262 $ 20,494,330 Dem. Chg.lncI.Trans.{~$A'W+2%¥ $ 7.6994 $ 7.8.5~4 $ 8.0105 $ 8.1707 $ 8.334t $ 8.5006 $ 8.67(:~ $ 8.8442 Dem. Chg. Cost$ $ 10,694,134 $ 11,235,257 $ 11,803,761 $ 12,401,031 $ 13,028,524 $ 13,687,767 $ 14,380,368 $ 15,106,015 DlrectAssignmentFacilitles $ 5,000 $ 5,100 $ 5,202 $ 5,306 $ 5,412 $ 5,520 $ 5,631 $ 5,743 Customer Charge $1mo. +2%tyr. $ 2,400 $ 2,448 $ 2,497 $ 2,547 $ 2,598 $ 2,650 $ 2,703 $ 2,757 Sum. Cap. Req.= Load+l 5% Res. 185,023 190,573 196,290 202,179 208,244 214,492 220,927 227,554 Win. Cap. Req.= Load+15% Res. 125,913 129,691 133,582 137,58.9 141,717 145,968 150,347 154,858 Summer Capacity ~ S/kW, +2%¥ $ 3.2680 $ 3.3333 $ 3.~00 $ 3.4680 $ 3.5374 $ 3.6081 $ 3.6803 $ 3.7539 Winter Capacity@$/kW,+2%/yr $ 3.2680 $ 3.3333 $ 3.4C00 $ 3.4680 $ 3.5374 $ 3.6081 $ 3.6803 $ 3.7539 Capacity Purc. ~ S/yr. $ 6,096,783 $ 6,z~5,281 $ 6,729,388 $ 7,069,895 $ 7,427,631 $ 7,803,470 $ 8,196,325 $ 8~613,160 Peaking kWh Purc lO0*Sum Pk kW 16,068,915 16,571,583 17,068,730 17,580,792 18,108,216 18,651,462 19,211,006 19,787,336 kWh Purc ~ $O.08S/kWh~- 2e/~/yr. $ 1,367,558 $ 1,436,756 $ 1,509,456 $ 1,585,835 $ 1,666,078 $ 1,750,381 $ 1,838,951 $ 1,932,002 Tot. Purch. Pwr Cost $ $ 32,072,686 $ 34,325,697 $ 36,062,347 $ 37,086,866 $ 39,303,701 $ 41,817,523 $ 43,933,240 L45,156,00~ Tot. Purch. Pw~ Cost $,kWh 0.0406 0.0414 0.0422 0.0431 0.0439 0.0440 0.0457 ~L~ 0.04~ Schedule - 4 Page 1 of 3 09/12/2003 9:19 AM Purchased Power Projected Costs City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Purchased Power Costs Item 9 10 11 12 13 14 10 16 Est. kWh Sales - Sch. 6 984,527,416 1,014,063,238 1 ,O44,485,135 1,075,819,689 1,106,094,280 1,141,337,108 1,175,577,222 1,210,844,538 Sales Growth %/yr. 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% kWh Losses 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% kWh Purchases 1,020,235,664 1,(350,842,734 1,082,368,016 1,114,839,056 1,148,284,228 1,182,732,755 1,218,214,737 1,254,761,180 Summer Coincident Pk kW - Sch. 6 196,676 202,577 202,577 202,577 202,577 202,577 202,577 202,577 Winter Coincident Pk kW - Sch. 6 133,844 137,859 137,859 137,859 137,859 137,859 137,859 137,859 Summer Pk kW with Losses 203,810 209,924 216,222 222,706 2.29,389 236,271 243,359 250,660 Winter Pk kw with Losses 138,6S~ 142,860 147,145 151,560 156,106 160,790 165,613 170,582 Annual Load Factor 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% Peak Mo. Bill. kW (97% Est. Pk) 197,695 203,626 2(9,735 216,027 222.,508 229,183 236,a59 243,1~O Annual Bill. kW (97% Est. Dem) 1,759,488 1,812,273 1,866,641 1,922,6~ 1,980,319 2,039,729 2,1OO,921 2,163,948 EnergyChg.lncI.Trans$/kWh+2%¥ $ 0.0211 $ 0.O215 $ 0.0220 $ 0.0224 $ 0.0228 $ 0.0233 $ 0.0238 $ 0.0242 Energy Cost $ $ 21,531,343 $ 22,620,829 $ 23,765,443 $ 24,967,974 $ 26,231,354 $ 27,558,660 $ 28,953,128 $ 30,418,157 Dem. Chg.lncLTrans.~$/kW+2%/¥r $ 9.0'211 $ 9.2015 $ 9.3855 $ 9.5732 $ 9.7647 $ 9.9~0 $ 10.1592 $ 10.3624 Dem. Chg. Cost$ $ 15,872,480 $ 16,675,628 $ 17,519,414 $ 18,405,897 $ 19,337,235 $ 20,315,699 $ 21,343,673 $ 22,423,663 Direct Assignment Facilities $ 5,858 $ 5,975 $ 6,095 $ 6,217 $ 6,341 $ 6,468 $ 6,597 $ 6,729 Customer Charge $1mo. +2O. Vyr. $ 2,812 $ 2,868 $ 2,926 $ 2,984 $ 3,044 $ 3,105 $ 3,167 $ 3,230 Sum. Cap. Req.= Load+l 5% Res. 234,381 241,412 248,655 256,114 263,798 271,712 279,863 288,259 Win. Cap. Req.= Load+15% Res. 159,503 164,288 169,217 174,294 179,522 184,906 19D,455 196,169 Summer Capacity ~ $/kW, +2%~/r $ 3.8290 $ 3.9(355 $ 3.9836 $ 4.0B33 $ 4.1446 $ 4.2275 $ 4.3120 $ 4.3963 Winter Capacity @ $/kW, +2%/yr $ 3.8290 $ 3.9055 $ 3.9636 $ 4.0633 $ 4.1446 $ 4.2275 $ 4.3120 $ 4.3~3 CapacityPurc.~$1yr. $ 9,048,986 $ 9,506,865 $ 9,967,912 $ 10,493,301 $ 11,O24,262 $ 11,582,089 $ 12,168,143 $ 12,783,851 Peaking kwh Purc lO0*Sum Pk kW 20,380,957 20,9~2,385 21,822,157 22,270,821 22,938,946 23,627,114 24,335,928 25,066,006 kwh Purc ~ So.oaS/kWh+ 2%/yr. $ 2,029,761 $ 2,132,467 $ 2,240,370 $ 2,353,'/32 $ 2,472,831 $ 2,597,956 $ 2,729,413 $ 2,867,521 Tot. Purch. Pwr Cost $ $ 48,491,240 $ 60,944,632 $ 53,622,160 $ 56,230,105 $ 59,076,067 $ 62,063,978 $ 66,204,122 $ 68,503,152 r-~.it546 Tot. Purch. Pwr Cost S/kWh 0.0476 0.0485 0.0494 0.0504 0.0514 0.0625 0.05~ Schedule - 4 Page 2 of 3 09/12/2003 9:19 AM Purchased Power Projected Costs City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Purchased Power Costs Item 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Est. kWh Sales - Sch. 6 1,247,169,874 1,284,564,971 1,323,122,520 1,362,816,195 1,403,700,681 1,445,611,702 1,489,186,053 1,533,861,634 1,579,877,483" Sales Grov~h %/yr, 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3~¢, kWh Losses 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% kWh Purchases 1,292,404,015 1,331,176,135 1,371,111,419 1,412,244,762 1,454,612,105 1,498,250,468 1,543,197,982 1,589,493,922 1,637,178,739 Summer Coincident Pk kW - Sch. 6 208,654 214,913 221,361 228,002 234,842 241,887 249,144 256,618 264,316 Winter Coincident Pk kW - Sch. 8 141,995 146,255 150,6~3 155,162 159,817 164,611 169,550 174,636 179,875 Summer Pk kW with Losses 258,180 265,925 273,903 282,120 290,584 299,301 308,280 317,529 327,055 Winter Pk kW with Losses 175,699 180,970 186,399 191,991 197,751 203,664 209,794 216,088 222,570 Annual Load Factor 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% Peak Mo. BilL kW (97% Est. Pk) 250,434 257,947 265,686 273,657 261,666 290,322 299,032 308,003 317,243 Annual Bill kW (97% Est. Dem) 2,228,867 2,295,733 2,364,605 2,435,543 2,508,609 2,583,867 2,661,383 2,741,225 2,823,462 Energy Chg.lncLTranss/kWh+2%/yr $ 0.0247 $ 0.0252 $ 0.0257 $ 0.0262 $ 0.0268 $ 0.0273 $ 0.0278 $ 0.0284 $ 0.0290 Energy Cost $ $ 31,957,315 $ 33,574,356 $ 35,273,218 $ 37,058,043 $ 38,933,180 $ 40,903,199 $ 42,972,901 $ 45,147,329 $ 47,431,784 Dem. Chg.lnol.Trans.~$/kW+2%/yr $ 10.5696 $ 10.7810 $ 10.9966 $ 11.2166 $ 11.4409 $ 11.6697 $ 11.9031 $ 12.1412 $ 12.3840 Dem. Chg. Cost$ $ 23,558,301 $ 24,750,351 $ 26,002,719 $ 27,318,456 $ 28,700,770 $ 30,153,029 $ 31,678,772 $ 33,261,718 $ 34,965,773 Direct Assignment Facilities $ 6,864 $ 7,001 $ 7,141 $ 7,284 $ 7,430 $ 7,578 $ 7,730 $ 7,884 $ 8,042 Customer Charge$/rno.+2%/yr. $ 3,295 $ 3,361 $ 3,428 $ 3,496 $ 3,566 $ 3,638 $ 3,710 $ 3,785 $ 3,860 Sum. Cap. Req.= Load+ 15% Res. 296,907 305,814 314,988 324,438 334,171 344,196 354,522 365,158 376,113 Win. Cap. Req.= Load+l 5% Res. 202,054 208,116 214,359 220,790 227,414 234,236 241,263 248,501 255,956 Summer Capacity ~ S/kW, +2%/yr $ 4.4862 $ 4.5760 $ 4.6675 $ 4.7608 $ 4.6560 $ 4.9532 $ 5.0522 $ 5.1533 $ 5.2563 Winter Capacity ~ S/kW, +2%/yr $ 4.4862 $ 4.5760 $ 4.6675 $ 4.7608 $ 4.8560 $ 4.9532 $ 5.0522 $ 5.1533 $ 5.2563 CapacityPurc.~$/yr. $ 13,430,714 $ 14,110,308 $ 14,824,290 $ 15,574,399 $ 16,362,463 $ 17,190,404 $ 18,060,239 $ 19,974,087 $ 19,934,175 Peaking kWh Purc 100*Sum Pk kW 25,817,986 26,592,526 27,390,301 28,212,010 29,058,371 29,930,122 30,828,025 31,752,866 32,705,452 kWh Purc ~ $0.0851kWh+ 2%lyr. $ 3,012,618 $ 3,165,056 $ 3,325,208 $ 3,493,464 $ 3,670,233 $ 3,855,947 $ 4,051,058 $ 4,256,041 $ 4,471,397 Tot. Purch. Pwr Cost $ $ 71,969,107 $ 75,610,433 $ 79,436,003 $ 83,456,142 $ 87,677,642 $ 92,113,794 $ 96,774,409 $ 101,670,844 $ 106,815,032 Tot. Purch. Pwr Cost S/kWh 0.0557 0.0568 0.0679 0.0591 0.0603 0.06t 5 0.0627 0.0640 0.0652 Schedule - 4 Page 3 of 3 09/12/2003 9:19 AM Projected Expense Operations and Maintenance City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of O & M and A & G and Contractor Line Work $/Yr ~ IAMU $/Yr (~ IAMU Item Est. Hr/Yr S/Hr, inc. OH $/Yr Avg/Meter Avg/kWh Lineperson(s) 114,000 $ 40.00 $ 4,560,000 Bucket Truck 24,000 $ 38.00 $ 912,000 Digger Truck 14,000 $ 55.00 $ 770,000 Pole Trailer 14,000 $ 3.00 $ 42,000 Trencher 14,000 $ 10.00 $ 140,000 Service Truck 30,000 $ 15.00 $ 450,000 Substation Facilities Charge $ 120,000 Contractors/Tree Trimming/Meter Tests $ 750,000 Distribution O & M Total $ 7,744,000 $'14,792,'1t9 $13,970,967 Cust Acct 10,000 $ 28.00 280,000 A & G 10,000 $ 70.00 700,000 Meter Reading 15,000 $ 32.00 480,000 Office and Misc. 75,000 Accounting and Other Staff 300,000 0 Management, Supervision and Engineering 1,000,000 Professional Services 200,000 Cust Acct, Gen& Admin Total $ 3,035,000 $ 3,953,588 $ 3,730,536 L--~ '~' '-o --~ Schedule - 5 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:19 AM Projection of Billing Data Customers, kW, kWh City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Estimated Elestric Data # CustJ kW Summer kW Summer kW Winter kWWinter kWhlCustomerl Customer Class # Li~Jhts PealdCust Peak Peak PealdCust Year kWh/Year Res 37,358 2.11 78,701 46,662 1.25 8,010 299,243,779 GS - Comm. 1,484 16.5 24,555 18,045 12.2 85,291 126,571,139 LGS -ind.+ Major Accts. 33 1576 52,002 40,951 1241 10,518,100 347,097,291 Area + St. Lgt. 2909 0 0 0 0.00 1,472 4,282,824 Total 41,784 155,258 105,658 777,195,033 Total Excluding Lighting 38,875 Occupied Housing Units 2000 U.S. Census Bureau 25202 PopuLation 2000 U.S. Census Bureau 62,220 Population/Housing Units 2.5 Estimate Res Elec Customers = 105% of Res. Water Customers Estimate GS-Comm. Elec Customers - 105Y0 of Corem I & ind. Sm., Pub. Auth., Interdept. + School Water Customers Estimate LGS-Ind. Elec Customers = Comm'l Ind. Lg. Nat. Gas/Major Customers Cust Class Water Nat. Gas Sewer O Com'l & Ind. Sm. 1,279 ~-~ r~ Pa b AuthoritieslGov't 111 Interdepartmental Other 5 Total 37024.75 0 average is 6.17 units/multiple water meter co Source: IPL 2002 Load Research Annual System Peak 7/8/2002, Hour Annual Coin. Avg, # mWh kWh Sales/ Coin, Annual Load 17 kW Cust,/mo, Sales/Yr Cus'dYr kW/kWh Factor Residential 975,001 392,106 3,705,522 0.000263 0.433850592 Corn merciaI-GS 354,949 63,455 1,834,119 0.000194 0.589871538 kWhlCust in East System Res. 8,010 Gen Ser-Comm 85,291 kWh/Cust in North System Res. 9,967 Gert Ser-Comm 37,770 kWh/Cust in South System Res. 9,778 Gert Ser-Comm 42,383 Schedule - 6 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:19 AM Major Accounts City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Estimated Electric Data - Major Accounts: Coincidence kW kW Customer #Accts Rate Factor Summer Winter Est. kWh/Yr $ perYear $ per kwh LGS--Large Commercial: Peaks Adjusted to Coincident Peak Customer-1 10 LGS Customer-2 I LGS Customer-3 1 LGS Customer-4 1 LGS Customer-5 1 LGS Customer-6 1 LGS Customer-7 1 LGS Customer-8 1 LGS ~ ~ Customer-9 1 LGS ~C'~ Customer-10 1 LGS ~ ~ Customer-Il 1 LGS ~--~. -<~ 'TI Customer-12 1 LGS .~? o'~ ~-- Customer-13 1 LGS rT~ 3~. ~ Customer-14 I LGS ~ ~ ~ L.~ Customer-15 1 LGS ~. "" ~ Customer-10 I LGS ~n Customer-17 1 LGS co Customer-18 1 LGS Customer-19 5 LGS Customer-20 1 LGS 33 52,002 40,951 347,097,291 14,262,152 0.0411 MEC 2002 Net Peak (mW) 3,889 MEC 2002 Net mWh 20,190,883 MEC Annual Load Factor 0.592670 - .'.C Class Load Factors mWh Load Factor Coin. Peak Load Factors for Residential and Commercial from IPL load Residential 4,785,579 0.433851 1,259 research data and solved for Industrial load factor Commercial 3,847,113 0.589872 745 industrial 6,711,922 0.791867 968 Lighting 81,711 Total-Iowa Estimate 15,426,325 0.592670 2,971 Schedule - 7 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:17 AM Interstate Power Light Load Research 2002 City: Iowa Cit~ Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East 2004 Schedule of 2002 IPL IA Jurisdiction Class Contribution to System Peak in KW Load Research Data Res Wh & Yr Hr Month Day Ending Res Comm Ind Bulk Total System Total Load Factor Jan 16 1900 582,994 207,792 911,399 129,743 1,831,928 349,730 Feb 26 1900 633,086 215,089 930,852 133,110 1,912,137 292,030 Mar 4 900 505,385 312,692 1,001,359 122,070 1,941,506 289,948 Apr 18 1500 356,589 352,983 1,142,422 132,967 1,984,961 260,461 May 30 1700 536,414 325,088 993,942 153,072 2,008,516 228,661 Jun 25 1700 924,902 364,605 ' 1,079,445 136,609 2,505,561 274,790 Jul 8 1700 1,049,683 382,137 1,093,790 130,163 2,655,773 407,981 Aug 1 1400 857,004 427,307 1,138,398 135,650 2,558,359 403,814 Sep 9 1500 837,889 438,884 1,146,625 146,057 2,569,455 339,444 Oct 1 1200 382,782 359,477 1,113,214 136,255 1,991,728 256,274 Nov 25 1800 622,355 280,824 941,524 131,115 1,975,818 269,771 Dec 5 1800 636,153 254,382 962,076 121,687 1,974,298 ~ 332,618 2002 Total IA mWh by Class 3,705,522 1,834,119 7,459,431 1,199,951 14,199,0(~. 2003 Total IA Cust by Class 392,106 63,455 3,864 2 459,4~'~ IPL Form 1Annual System Peak-2002 in mW 3,086 IPL Form 1 Tota~ Monthly Energy-2002 in mWh 17,759,549 IPL Annual System Load Factor-2002 in % 0.6569 - IPL Load Res. Ann. Sys. Peak Est.-Total Sys. 2002 mW 2,853 IPL Load Res. Total Monthly Energy-Total Sys.-2002 mWh 15,251,985 IPL Load Research Load Factor-2002 in % 0.6102 IPL System, including Iowa, Load Research Coincident Peaks, Class kWh and Customers Reported Adjust. Factor Total System Iowa Only 0.92885 Class Ann. Coinc,P Annual mWh Customers Ld Res. Pk. Adj. Peak Residential Incl. Farm 1,135,280 4,052,551 433,294 1,049,683 975,001 General Service 422,462 2,014,173 71,470 382,137 354,949 Large General Service 1,165,369 7,985,310 4,160 1,093,790 1,015,970 Bulk Total 130,163 1,199,951 2 130,163 120,902 Total System 2,853,274 15,251,985 508,926 2,655,773 2,466,822 Peak Demand Adjustment to Recorded System Peak Load and Load Factor System Load Factor 0.656949 Load Res Load Factor 0,6102092 Adjustment Factor to Actual=LR Load FactorlSyst. Load Factor 0,9288528 Avg kWh/Res. Cust 9,450 Load Res. Est. Load Factor-Res. 0.4030 Avg kW PIdResCust 2.487 Ld Res Ld. Factor Adjusted to Actual 0.4339 Schedule - 8 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Estimated MidAmerican Energy Annual City Revenue c,ty: ,owaC, ,o,. r,.4 Schedule of Incumbent S/kWh and Revenue by Class and Total 2003 East System East System East System 0t Customer Class City kWh/Yr Avg. IPL S/kWh Est. IPL $/Yr Res 299,243,779 0.0916 $27,420,689 GS 126,571,139 0.0654 $ 8,283,740 LGS 347,097,291 0.0411 $14,262,152 Lighting 4,282,824 0.1224 $ 524,415 Total 777,195,033 $ 0.0650 $50,490,996 North System North System North System Customer Class City kWh/Yr Avg. IPL S/kWh Est. IPL $/Yr Res $ 0.0753 $ GS $ 0.0591 $ LGS $ 0.0377 $ Lighting $ 0.1242 $ Total $ South System South System South System Customer Class City kWh/Yr Avg. IPL S/kWh Est. IPL $/Yr Res $ 0.0907 $ GS $ 0.0725 $ LGS $ 0.0432 $ Lighting $ 0.1998 $ Total $ Total MEC Total Total Customer Class City kWh/Yr Avg. MEC $1kWI Est. MEC $/Yr Res + Farm 299,243,779 $ 0.0865 $25,873,430 GS + Oth Pub Auth 126,571,139 $ 0.0668 $ 8,450,583 LGS + Bulk 347,097,291 $ 0.0416 $14,428,224 Lighting 4,282,824 $ 0.1576 $ 675,029 Total 777,195,033 $ 0.0636 $49,427,267 Schedule - 9 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Street Lights City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 1248 1,112.35 Schedule of Street Lights 552 0.89 Total Fixture Replace Replace Replace Unit Total City Replace Lamps Photocell Wires Replace No. Sec.+ Replaces Total Size/Type $ Cost Cost $ Coat Coat $ Coat St. Lgts Coat kWh/Yr/Lgt kWh/Yr 100W MV $ 150 $ 7 $ 14 $ 50 $ 221 6 $ 1,326 492 2952 175WMV $ 175 $ 8 $ 14 $ 50 $ 247 87 $ 21,489 810 70470 260W MV $ 200 $ 'I0 $ 14 $ 50 $ 274 '14 $ 3,836 1,112 15568 IOOWHPS/MH $ 190 $ 13 $ 14 $ 50 $ 267 1514 $ 404,238 540 817,560 150WHPS $ 200 $ 13 $ 14 $ 50 $ 277 448 $ 124,096 776 347648 175W HPS/MH $ 250 $ 14 $ 14 $ 50 $ 328 252 $ 82,656 776 195552 200WHPS $ 275 $ 15 $ 14 $ 50 $ 354 $ 1,012 0 250W HPS/MH $ 300 $ 16 $ 14 $ 50 $ 380 588 $ 223,440 1,248 733824 400WHPS $ 400 $ 25 $ 14 $ 50 $ 489 $ 1,956 0 Total St. Lights w/o poles 2909 $ 861,081 2,183,574 Poles/conduit etc. at $%000 for 50% $1,454,500 # Security Lights at 10% of Cast, $ at 100 W HPS + $2501pole $ 2,009,838 2,099,250 Replacement Cost Depreciated $ 870,496 Original Cost Depreciated $ 668,750 4,282,824 Schedule -10 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:09 AM investment Summary City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Buyout, Reintegration and Other Investment Replacement Original Replacement Investment Type Depreciated Depreciated Cost Buyout $ Stranded Generation $ $ $ Distribution $ $ 1,561,797 $ 1,199,836 $ 7,760,434 Lights $ 870,496 $ 668,750 $ 4,325,419 Res Meter/Serv/Trfr $ 2,729,160 $ 2,096,650 $ 13,560,954 GS Meter/Serv/Trfr $ 419,613 $ 322,364 $ 2,085,020 LGS Meter/Serv/-I';fr $ 27,163 $ 20,868 $ 134,970 Subtotal $ 5,608,229 $ 4,308,468 $ 27,866,797 Inventory @ 3% of RC Subtotal $ 836,004 $ 836,004 $ 836,004 Substation $ $ 4,170,286 $ 3,278,175 $ 13,925,000 Sub-transmission $ $ 13,316 $ 1,851 $ 587,558 Total Buyout $ 10,627,835 $ 8,424,497 Bonding & Contingency-lO% $ 1,062,783 $ 842,450 Total Buyout Incl. 10% Bond. & Conting. $ 11,690,618 $ 9,266,947 $ 43,215,359 0 Reintegration $ $ 196,500 $ 196,500 C) -~- -o -T'J Buyout Plus Reintegration Investment $ 11,887,115 $ 9,463,447 Schedule - 11 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Distribution System Mapping City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East 2004 Schedule of Distribution System Field Check By: Dat~: Reviewed By: Total Feet 866,604 Dist Area # Plant Life Ft. 1Ph OH or UB Ft. 2/3Ph OH Ft. IPh UG Ft. 3Ph UG Total Feet .'eet Feet Feet Vintage/S/Unit 2004 $ 8.00 $ 8.50 $ 9.00 $ 11.00 Dist St. )ist St. Dist St. 34-69kV 1950 0.210 0.100 1,000 1960 0.080 0.120 46,133 1970 0.040 0.050 0.030 0.040 12,689 1980 0.030 0.030 0.050 0.080 89,793 f990 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.090 25,932 2000 0.005 0.025 21,861 Projected 2004 38,935 Replacements $ 2,495,818 $ 2,283,500 $ 740,946 $2,240,170 $ 7,760,434 100,635 Replace. Cost Deprec.$ $ 81,467 $ 139,634 $ 236,740 $1,103,957 $ 1,561,797 168,416 Original Cost Deprec. $ $ 49,543 $ 95,738 $ 170,314 $ 884,240 $ 1,199,836 82,776 134,475 74,520 64,467 7,710 20,749 19,529 53,808 6,869 6,390 42,069 21,459 20,085 V OI ',',,±10 8§ 91 d':lS Ei]0Z Schedule - 12 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Handy-Whitman Electric Construction Indices City: I___.owa C ~ 4 Utility.' MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Handy-Whitman Indices for Depreciation Total Distribution Plant Valuation using Handy-Whitman Index (HWI) for North Central USA HWI 1973 =100 Base costs are in 2002 dollars and adjusted to 2004 3,37% Life in Yrs (IPL RPU-02-03) 29.7 Distrib, Plant Deprec. = HVVI Ratio Original Cost Replacement Mid Point 2004 to Plant Depreciated Cost Deprec. Vintage Yr HWI* MidPoint Undeprec.% % % 1950s 1955 52 0.139 0.000% 0,000% 0.000% 1960s 1965 63 0,169 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 1970s 1975 138 0,369 2.357% 0.870% 2.357% 1980s 1985 235 0.629 36.027% 22.661% 36.027% 1990s 1995 309 0.827 69.697% 57.639% 69,697% 2000s 2002 359 0.961 93.266% 89.629% 93.266% 2004 374 1.000 100.000% 100,000% 100.000% *HWI of 2002 (359) adjusted 2004 at 2% estimated increase per year compounded = 374. Schedule - 13 Page 1 of 1 09112/2003 9:09 AM Meters, Services, Transformers and Secondary City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 UtilitT: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Meter Services Total Number Replace Replace Replace Replace Total Repl. Cost Total Orig. Cost Customer Class Customers $1MeterlCust $1ServlCust srrrfrlCust $1Cust Total Replace $ Deprec. $ Deprec. $ Res50 kVa/8 37,358 $ 75.00 $ 150.00 $ 138.00 $ 353.00 $ 13,560,954.00 $ 2,729,159.62 $ 2,095,650.42 GS-Comm 50 kVall 1,484 $ 100.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,105.00 $ 1,405.00 $ 2,085,020.00 $ 419,612.98 $ 322,363.61 LGS-Ind 150 kVa/1 33 $ 500.00 $ 450.00 $ 3,140.00 $ 4,090.00 $ 134,970.00 $ 27,162.89 $ 20,887.63 LGS-Ind 150 kVa/1 $ 1,000.00 $ 450.00 $ 3,140.00 $ 4,590.00 $ $ $ Total 38,875 $ 15,780,944.00 $ 3,175,935.49 $ 2,439,881.65 Schedule - 14 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Projected Reintegration Costs City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MECoEast Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Reintegration Requirements Primary Metering: 3PhOH 2PhOHPri IPhOHPri Meter Type Pri Meter Meter Meter Total Meter S/Unit $ 7,500 $ 6,000 $ 4,000 Number 14 0 4 $ $105,000 $ $ 16,000 $ 121,000 New Circuits: Circuit Ft. 1Ph Ft. 2/3Ph Tupe OH or UB OH or UB Ft. 1Ph UG Ft. 3Ph UG Total SIFt $ 8.00 $ 8.50 $ 9.00 $ 11.00 Ft. 0 3,000 0 0 $ 0 25,500 0 0 25,500 Switches/Reclosers/Other $ 50,000 Total Reintegration $ = $ 196,500 Schedule - 15 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Valuation of Substations City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Substations $ Replace )ist Area # Vintage $ Replace Deprec $ Orig Deprec $ Original Misc Step Downs 1970 $ 575~000 13,552 $ 5,001 $ 212r175, SUB001 1990 $ 2,000,000 1,393~939 $ 1,152,788 $ 1~654,000 SUB002 1980 $ 1~700,000 612,458 $ 385,236 $ 1,069,30(~,,IC buy into transformers SUB003 1970 $ 1~600~000 37,710 $ 13,915 $ 590r400 SUB004 1970 $ 2~400~000 56~566 $ 20~873 $ 885,600 SUB005 1960 $ 1~600,000 $ $ 270,400 SUB006 1960 $ 1~100,000 $ $ 185,900 SUB007 1990 $ 1,200,000 836~364 $ 691~673 $ 992,400 SUB008 1990 $ 1~750,000 1,219,697 $ 1,008,689 $ 1,447,250 'otal $13,925,000 $ 4,170,286 $ 3,278,175 $ 7,307,, Miscetlaneous Annual Substation Facilities Charges $ 120,000 Schedule - 16 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Transmission and Sub-transmisssion Valuation City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Schedule of 34.5-69 kV Lines Field Check By: Date: Reviewed By: U~III[y; , :)ist Area $ 69 kV Vintage $ Replacefi~e~ $ Original # Ft. 34.5 kV Ft. 69 kV ; 34kY New Hew Decade Depreciated Depreciated S/Unit New 20.00 25.00' ST001 - 22,598 564,960 1970 13,315.56 1 ~851 ST002 ST003 Total 22,596 564,960 ~ '~ ~ RR1 Schedule - 17 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Stranded Generation City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Stranded Generation Stranded Generation Buy'out = 0 Schedule - 18 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:09 AM IAMU Unbundling Data Year 1: 2004 City: Iowa City Pop. Grp, 4 Utility: MEC-East Schedule of IAMU Unbundling Data c~ Schedule - 19 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Energy information Administration EIA 2001 City: Iowa City Pop, Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of Energy Information Administration Data O Popl Pop Res $/ kWh/Res Res Corem $/ kWh/Corn Comm Ind $/ kWh/Ind Ind Tot $/ kWh/Tot Tot~ Oroup Max Pop Range # Towns CustlYr Cus'd Yr. S/kWh Cust/Yr Cust/Yr. S/kWh Cust/Yr Cust/Yr. S/kWh CustJYr Cust/Yr. ~L~lkWh 33,522 1,000 1 53 625 6,914 0.0701 1.894 27,504 0.0689 11,131 197,033 0.0565 952 14,148--~.0673 03 131,8~6 5,000 2 65 598 9,089 0.0658 2,261 36,123 0.0626 30,266 569,632 0.0513 1,101 18,13G~06_07 96,855 10,000 3 14 609 6,995 0.0677 2,898 47.457 0.0611 63,212 1,304,670 0.0485 1,513 26,219~ _57733. 133,888 10,009+ 4 5 526 9,064 0.0561 4,160 60,744 0.0516 465,761 11,464,149 0.0406 1,640 34,4~_~ 476;:~ 396,071 Pop # Ind Tot SM Tot mWh # Tot ~op Rankle UTILNAME ResSM ResmWh #Res ComSM CommWh #Com IndSM IndmWh 917 1 1 AEon City of 256 3304 395 182 2718 77 0 0 0 438 6022 4/7 1489 2 2 Akron City of 364 6582 690 349 5766 176 0 0 0 713 12348 8~ 5741 3 3 Algona City of 1555 28073 2996 3152 60014 581 0 0 0 4796 89446 3578 1865 2 4 Aita City of 444 8271 623 104 1801 47 16 400 5 684 12734 882 286 1 5 Alta Vista City of 76 1299 196 41 657 31 0 0 0 119 2010 235 1095 2 9 Alton City of 274 5110 460 204 3697 121 0 0 0 487 9027 582 50731 4 7 Ames City 0f 9473 130670 17724 11452 204015 2268 4193 102152 5 28919 534073 20162 1049 2 8 Anita City of 245 4829 514 112 2280 116 0 0 0 391 7872 645 649 I 9 Anthon Cit,/of 204 3315 319 36 676 34 63 1985 15 320 5455 376 1054 2 10 Aplington City of 316 3265 453 98 1992 66 0 0 0 414 5257 519 7257 3 11 Atlantic Municipal Llti 2041 39062 3769 1916 38463 644 517 16668 1 4705 97918 4494 296 1 12 Aubum City of 127 1533 176 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 1533 176 1062 2 13 Aurelia City of 274 4000 494 47 629 63 115 2000 16 484 7435 580 808 1 14 Bencr~t Municipal U1 221 3122 383 344 5297 94 159 2281 109 724 10700 586 2350 2 15 Bellevue City of 588 7787 1046 260 3252 213 294 4308 17 1275 16967 1503 2601 2 16 Bloomfield City of 930 11767 1159 446 5133 278 563 8162 15 1975 25993 1453 477 I 17 Breda C~ty 0f 160 2270 224 63 1136 52 31 622 8 254 4028 284 1367 2 18 Brooklyn City of 446 6211 659 278 3854 102 0 0 0 742 10460 774 1321 2 19 Buffal0 City of 198 2418 430 114 1749 93 0 0 0 353 4676 549 556 1 20 BuA City of 148 1922 230 62 636 51 0 0 0 261 3287 296 424 1 21 Callender CAy of 106 1336 184 22 324 13 0 0 0 152 2060 207 3497 2 22 Cadisle City of 727 11462 1303 274 4066 139 0 0 0 1169 18256 1446 1958 2 23 Cascade Municipal U 507 7319 866 481 8451 162 0 6 0 1074 16859 1045 36145 4 24 Cedar Faits City of 6447 137928 14025 4555 109418 1812 2244 61093 43 15127 367813 16057 745 1 25 Coggon City of 254 2476 313 8 77 20 56 674 10 344 3545 350 1305 2 26 Coon Rapids City of 419 8750 586 373 5812 149 217 2967 1 1021 17805 739 1783 2 27 Corning City of 369 8559 853 212 4675 229 0 0 0 756 17745 1140 350 1 28 Corwith City of 117 1132 164 102 959 59 0 0 0 219 2091 223 914 1 29 Danville City of 245 3441 397 115 197t 40 0 0 0 363 5412 437 684 1 30 Dayton City of 244 2815 381 142 1527 81 11 118 1 436 5001 473 7339 3 31 Denis0n City of 1420 29126 2591 1729 42078 690 2557 67993 5 570~ 139197 3286 1627 2 32 Denver City of 465 6347 992 221 3463 87 35 652 5 729 10597 785 944 1 33 Dike City of 220 2991 368 229 3358 44 0 0 0 449 6349 412 1677 2 34 Durant City of 434 5662 705 101 1279 116 334 4580 25 981 12384 875 1303 2 35 Dysant Cityof 380 4696 581 188 2637 96 0 0 0 605 7886 663 990 I 36 Eartvil~e City of 211 2808 356 136 1761 49 0 0 0 347 4569 405 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Schedule - 20 Energy Information Administration EIA 2001 4159 2 37 Eldridge City of 1468 13914 1597 489 7516 177 440 7065 5 2397 28495 1779 531 1 38 EIIsworth City of 164 1712 224 78 977 48 107 1233 2 384 4276 268 6656 3 39 Estherville City of 1243 20203 2793 479 7968 420 974 19091 36 2915 51702 3290 1041 2 40 Fairbank City of 311 3864 441 110 1726 54 0 0 0 452 6062 507 430 1 41 Farnhamville City of 134 1671 224 104 1390 33 0 0 0 238 3061 257 648 1 42 Fonda City of 234 3083 357 35 450 40 24 214 1 321 4147 403 992 I 43 Fontanelie City of 168 4324 399 90 1661 46 0 0 0 276 5985 445 4362 2 44 Forect City City of 772 13284 1737 682 11754 64 1829 41767 11 3360 68226 1834 984 I 45 Fredericksburg City o 235 4452 440 276 4206 57 1068 23019 1 1642 32240 512 1253 2 46 Glidden City of 270 4768 509 38 898 75 67 1340 10 379 7850 616 1038 2 47 Gowrie Municipal Utit 272 3324 467 238 3188 140 0 0 0 510 8312 607 900 1 46 Graettinger City of 224 4677 443 65 1327 74 103 2072 13 405 8354 542 290 I 49 GraEon City of 60 900 128 10 440 14 31 279 2 124 2098 155 964 1 50 Grand Junction City ( 298 3156 428 61 556 67 69 888 7 441 4902 519 2129 2 51 Greenfield City of 620 8828 996 586 8393 241 900 18297 2 2106 35518 1239 2596 2 52 Grundy Center Mun t. 765 10944 1201 624 9862 242 414 8225 1 1850 29606 1445 1987 2 53 Guttenberg City of 454 7528 1029 270 4066 236 303 5201 18 1075 17627 1320 5282 3 54 Harlan City of 1749 24322 2351 1174 14869 506 768 14294 16 39~7 58485 2875 1733 2 55 HarUey City of 428 9259 837 221 3846 116 316 8331 9 965 19436 962 2478 2 56 Hawarden City of 659 11200 1053 347 6000 174 355 7200 12 1549 28600 1314 808 1 57 Hinton City of 194 3233 259 36 522 47 155 2070 7 412 6249 315 681 1 58 Hopkinton City of 151 2329 321 134 2016 59 26 328 1 314 4756 382 2117 2 59 I-ludson City of 527 6451 705 333 4426 62 0 0 0 933 12146 791 9014 3 60 independence City of 1513 20441 2700 602 10891 397 2066 33447 32 4561 67122 3131 12998 4 61 indianola Municipal U 2263 41645 4757 2050 38385 920 392 8154 7 5248 100211 5782 1066 2 62 Keosauqua City of 329 4157 603 165 2565 103 294 3582 13 887 12186 652 342 1 63 Kimhallton City of 90 1722 160 26 470 45 0 0 0 121 2265 210 2321 2 64 La Porte City City of 565 8774 981 274 5130 199 0 0 0 858 14320 1182 2140 2 65 Lake Mills City of 541 8266 1000 495 7503 150 1035 19226 18 2077 35393 1169 1023 2 66 Lake Park City of 200 3744 474 104 1628 98 142 3660 3 456 9566 578 1278 2 67 Lake View City of 416 7144 814 94 1975 149 183 3253 31 989 16813 1364 2444 2 68 Lamoni City of 557 7835 956 835 10417 138 0 0 0 1288 19681 1122 788 1 69 Larchwood City of 224 3308 350 110 1616 48 0 0 0 334 4926 398 1476 2 70 Laurens City of 350 9723 721 70 1572 109 334 8865 38 791 21316 870 461 I 71 Lawler City of 146 1862 240 58 790 40 0 0 0 204 2652 280 497 I 72 Lehigh City of 141 1612 259 31 353 26 0 0 0 172 1965 285 1401 2 73 Lenox City of 391 7001 567 467 8286 152 0 0 0 862 15320 740 431 1 74 Livermore City of 142 1921 201 84 880 52 0 0 0 230 2857 254 597 1 75 Long Grove City of 149 2146 207 21 265 14 0 0 0 175 25~.. 639 1 76 Mantlla Town of 213 4000 389 108 1600 96 5 220 3 331 5~) 46~ 1490 2 77 Manning City of 456 7050 722 173 2794 120 905 22203 21 1573 328~[L-.~ 83~ 1322 2 78 Map~cton City of 404 6059 717 101 1368 114 243 4414 56 805 1621~2..~.~ 93 6112 3 79 Maquoketa City of 1613 22509 2801 1521 21643 554 788 12660 13 3922 5 33 302 1 80 Marathon City of 91 1202 168 64 605 46 0 0 0 169 21~'5'~1 - 23967~ 871 1 81 McGregor City of 202 2953 469 79 1322 107 120 2064 7 442 / ' ~ Z474 Z 62 MiffordCityof 698 12833 1172 249 4~57 198 566 11156 18 1570 2/.93~--~ 1 1440 283 Montezurna City of 431 6762 691 355 5370 159 421 5966996266 121 40833615236273335-L~ 1 8751 3 84 Mt pleasant City of 1966 24998 3079 2508 35680 553 0 0 0 4474 --"- 30~ 22697 4 85 Muscatine City of 6159 93587 9288 9324 165625 1505 24377 845 1 86 Neola City of 190 3028 370 54 826 62 0 0 0 244 3692 2 87 New Hampton City ol 786 12666 1754 536 8089 299 1318 28068 26 2765 ~,--. 1937 2 88 New London Municip: 776 10081 1133 219 2698 97 0 0 0 1063 13833 2023 2 89 Ogden City of 576 7552 939 67 881 115 88 2105 33 749 10785 1115 3091 2 90 Onawa City of 820 14376 1347 686 12063 225 0 0 0 1569 27625 1597 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Schedule - 20 Energy Information Administration EIA 2001 5582 3 91 Orange City City of 1056 19087 1732 354 5637 225 2154 45022 55 3726 73400 2057 402 I 92 Orient City of 155 1812 235 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 1812 235 3451 2 93 Osage City of 794 13689 1745 1692 33122 303 0 0 0 2532 47424 2233 1175 2 94 Panora City of 321 3893 522 549 7353 192 0 0 0 870 11246 714 265 I 95 pnton City ~f 109 1185 127 36 367 24 0 0 0 146 1553 152 1124 2 96 Paullina City of 292 4713 561 167 3198 106 0 0 0 501 8744 703 9873 3 97 Pella City of 3095 34376 3767 1720 18546 472 6649 125447 31 11915 184187 4326 1970 2 98 pocahontas City of 521 7000 899 220 3000 163 202 3000 22 1098 16000 1113 949 1 99 preston City of 255 3677 419 182 2636 101 0 0 0 480 7095 557 891 1 100 Primghar City of 338 4271 472 201 3066 103 0 0 0 566 8023 577 786 1 101 Readlyn City of 189 2952 346 58 954 31 25 375 5 272 4291 382 1762 2 102 Remsen City of 367 5944 696 151 3432 160 183 3316 46 701 13692 902 306 1 103 Renwick City of 124 1700 150 127 1800 21 0 0 0 251 3500 171 2573 2 104 Rock Rapids Municip 567 11105 1053 514 10174 209 155 2781 10 1303 25474 1290 907 I 105 Rocldord City of 197 2761 411 88 1293 110 25 383 3 431 6172 545 670 1 106 Sabula City of 167 2424 422 87 1248 25 0 0 0 278 3978 460 1353 2 107 Sanbom City of 356 5915 552 433 9049 106 0 0 0 898 17722 676 3321 2 108 Sergeant Bluff City of 764 11533 1150 8~5 15949 130 0 0 0 1569 27382 1280 698 1 109 Shelby City of 141 2680 284 89 1810 70 0 0 0 236 4765 355 2796 2 110 Sibley City of 891 16862 1345 466 8489 201 428 10261 2 1798 35934 1549 6002 3 111 Sioux Center City of 1035 19326 1747 868 16579 286 1659 36121 124 3742 73946 2414 11317 4 112 Spencer City of 2312 55321 4861 3405 77234 860 9 0 0 6340 146255 5828 - 488 1 113 Stanhope City of 148 1478 196 91 921 45 0 0 0 255 2566 254 714 1 114 Stanton City of 245 4020 265 90 1698 41 6 111 1 389 6666 321 1349 2 115 State Center City of 474 5184 630 194 2183 96 78 1000 5 981 10757 915 3228 2 116 Story City City of 1015 13990 1558 323 3442 163 1538 28444 46 2920 46710 1776 746 1 117 Stratford City of 243 2313 335 143 1490 67 0 0 0 419 4155 417 1386 2 118 Strawbeny Point City 362 4263 659 291 3363 134 0 0 0 682 7988 839 1712 2 119 Stuart City of 502 5926 734 560 7052 155 0 0 0 1062 12978 889 2106 2 120 Sumner City of 542 8139 ~50 407 6582 234 0 0 0 980 15359 1205 73 1 121 Tennant City of 30 328 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 328 40 3155 2 122 Tipton City of 1038 11435 1426 697 8482 275 272 5001 5 2059 25722 1708 1594 2 123 Traer City of 624 8042 963 363 4646 132 340 5803 I 1343 18879 1107 1344 2 124 Viitisca City of 319 7500 663 154 3500 105 0 0 0 492 11500 799 5102 3 125 Vinton City of 1162 17123 2183 443 6383 301 399 6960 30 2128 32397 2533 841 1 126 Wall Lake City of 293 6107 378 157 3031 72 0 0 0 450 9138 450 8968 3 127 Wavedy Municipa~ El 2493 30040 3567 1143 15719 502 3281 61229 45 7344 113332 4199 8176 3 128 Webste~ City City of 2336 29783 3778 1607 23627 566 3852 90764 16 8125 149401 4420 634 1 129 West Bend CEy of 388 5714 505 168 2497 118 221 3115 9 806 12057 653 3332 2 130 West Liberty City of 667 10722 1242 567 6708 168 1306 25331 9 2609 44078 1448 950 1 131 West point Utility Sy~ 492 5409 585 330 4300 97 26 343 7 848 11052 689 189 1 132 Westfield Town of 51 650 79 12 178 7 0 0 0 63 828 86 530 1 133 Whittemore City of 142 1921 251 48 737 56 49 671 2 272 3817 321 2829 2 134 Wilton City of 726 10602 1195 265 3678 204 401 7450 7 1434 22~33. 142~,3 4768 2 135 Winterset City of 1218 16500 1954 1012 13672 315 652 10998 8 2927 41~ 227~ 1564 2 136 Woodbine City of 405 7557 657 232 4167 124 O O O 722 13~ 396,071 Total -~~ 76~ .............. Pop/# Res Cust 2,4 09/12/2g03 9:09 AM Schedule - 20 Electric Franchise and City-Specific Information City: Iowa City Pop. Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Schedule of Franchise Information City: Iowa City Wholesale Deliv. Energy/kWh $ $ 0.01801 Pop. Group: 4 Wholesale Deliv. Demand/kW $ $ 7.69940 Utility MEC Directly Assigned Facilities Charge/Year $ $ 5,000 Utility-System: MEC-East Customer Charge/Month $ $ 200 Wholesale Del. Voltage (kV): 161 Purch. Gen. Cap,/kW/Mo. $ $ 3.26797 Year 1: 2004 Distribution System Losses % 3.50% Wholesale Delivery Meters 1 Annual Retail Sales Growth kWh % 3.00% Replace. Del. Tax Zone MEC Replacement Delivery Tax Rate/kWh $ 0.00278584 Population 62220 City Annual Load Factor % 57% City Residential Concentration % ~ 39°/~ Electric Franchise: RCD NPV/Population $ $ ~1~4.70~ Granted: 09/18/1986 C3-~ ~ -T"] Years: 15 -~ O o~ ?" Expires: 918/01 Expired ~ '~,~. :~, iT'] Other City Utilities: Natural Gas: MEC Water: Yes Waste Water Yes Storm Water Yes Neighboring utilities for potential distibution operation: Pocohantas (12 mi. away) has 2 full time electric employees (~ $22/Hr direct cost + Digger + 45 Ft. Bucket 09/12/2003 9:09 AM Schedule - 21 Page 1 of 1 MidAmerican Energy Company Revenues and Electric Usage for 2002 City: Iowa Cit3 Pop, Grp. 4 Utility: MEC-East Year 1: 2004 Schedule of 2002 MidAmerican Energy Company Rat~s with Usage and Customers System~m**= Cb={uii~ers kwh Revenue kWh/Customer Revenue/kWh MEC-East System Residential 110,762 887,222,(:3C0 $ 81,299,061 8,010 $ 0.Q9163 CommerclarJGS 13,2~,5 1,129,673,000 $ 73,934,056 85,291 $ 0.06545 Industdal/LGS 264 1,714,9~6,0(~0 $ 74,794,443 6,496,Q08 $ 0.04361 Lighting 495 19,771,000 $ 2,420,882 39,941 $ 0.12245 East Subtotal 124,766 3,751,612,000 $ 232,448,442 30,069 $ 0.0619~ MEC-North System Residential 137,825 1,373,687,0(~0 $ 103,443,906 9,967 $ 0.07530 CommerciallGS 27,881 1 ,(~53,058,000 $ 62,243,322 37,770 $ 0.05911 Industrlal/LGS 422 2,105,914,(~C0 $ 79,410,9(30 4,g00,318 $ 0.03771 Li~l;i[iiit~ 20~ 25,395,000 $ 3,154,380 124,485 $ 0.12421 North Subtotal 166,332 4,558,Q54,0C0 $ 248,252,506 27/~33 $ 0.05446 MEC-South System Residential 258,204 2,524,670,0(~0 $ 229,031,1~9 9,778 $ 0.09072 CommerclallGS 39,270 1,664,382,0(30 $ 120,676,~84 42,383 $ 0.07251 IndustrlaDLGS 833 2,891,062,0~0 $ 124,797,457 3,470,663 $ 0.04317 Lighting 196 36,S~5,000 $ 7,303,a63 186,454 $ 0.1gg65 South Subtotal 298,5CG 7,116,659,000 $ z~81,8~9,103 23,841 $ 0.06770 N MEC TOTAL Residential 506,791 4,785,579,000 $ 413,774,166 9,443 $ 0.(36646 CommerclallGS 80,396 3,847,113,0~0 $ 256,854,362 47,852 $ 0.06677 Industrlal/LGS 1,519 6,711,922,000 $ 279,(302,800 4,418,645 $ 0.04157 ~ -~ ~ '-~ Ltyht;i~t~ 895 81,711,Q~0 $ 12,878,725 91,297 $ 0.15761 .-~r~ Total 589,601 15,426,325,0~0 $ 962,510,~53 261164 $ 0.06239 Schedule - 22 Page 1 of 1 09/12/2003 9:09 AM